Readers’ Responses to Our Question (270)

One should always give thanks to the one who has sent them.
All of us should be mindful and boast of what Jesus has done.
It is not about candidates winning, it is about giving thanks to Jesus and telling people what GOD has done for them so they in turn will be able to help others.
So...........
the answer is yes it is appropriate and important for the candidates to express their personal religious views and to use religious rhetoric.
Come on folks...................
Let us start winning people over to Jesus -- candidates and all. It's what its all about.
God Bless to all,
Sincerely,
Beth

American success is relevant to the character strength of our leaders. Those who expressed allegience not to a religion, but to God, and a common sense of the people. To continue our ascent it seems vital we be able to recognize the character traits of the candidates.

All establishments instituted by mankind become oppressive; including religious establishments. All occupational, cultural, political and religious groups demonstrate a conformity of thought and behavior. America was formed by men who were FREE thinkers; were independent; not influenced by the oppressive leadership mentality of their era.

These men opened the door to personal freedom; to a system of FREE enterprise. It was a people who believed in God; in ideals as equality, truth, compassion. Thought moves the body. When thought was focused on receiving personal guidance from God; when the lesson was 'how to be a better person'; a compatible diversity of talent emerged; money began to move all toward common welfare.

Today, when respect has moved from a God of love; from the existence of a compassionate Saviour; to the intelligence of mankind; to academic credentials; to minds that are formed to fit into a social machine being formed by an establishment; we see all the GOOD; the medical, social and scientific accomplishments return to control by human establishments; encounter a loss of business integrity; become enslaved to corporate greed; which is consuming our governing body.

The next election may determine our destiny. History shows it was personal character strengths; a focus on common personal ideals; that moved us toward; and holds the potential for continuous growth; and unlimited actualities. We never escaped from oppressive control; the primitive human mentality has always been dominate. It was just a rudimentary release of personal worth that allowed our rapid ascent.

It is personal character strength that matters; that determined our course. I believe not the Christian religious establishment; but Christian principals, expressed through the mind of human IDEALS as 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' have been the secret to our success. Unless we recognize this; elect a candidate representing the 'heart' of the people; we will follow the way of all human establishments---which simply RISE and FALL!

I see no implication of using religion to carry one into office-
THE QUESTION
As the presidential campaign begins to take shape, do you think it is appropriate and or important for the candidates to express their personal religious views and to use religious rhetoric? Why?

and as stated before- rhetoric is the language of politicians-

possibly in the rhetoric part but that is the second half-

Jihadist,

And "how now" are your mullahs educated? Their conduct at least in the Mideast indicates nothing more than eight years of the Koran/Qur'an so we should start with some basic grade school texts if we are going to supply books.

"Talibaners"- note the quotation marks here and previously for a new word describing members of the not-so-bright element of the Muslim religion called the Taliban.

And we should extend that US Air Force and US Navy wall around Iran another Islamic state with questionable educated mullahs and politicians.

No problem declaring religion in Iranian politics!!! Which one of the Mohammed "returning on a cloud/chariot" descendents do they follow again??? Definitely not a granddaughter or niece!!!

The question posed is one of two parts. The first of these questions asks whether it is appropriate for a candidate to use his/her religious views as a platform to carry him/her into office. Clearly a candidate's religious affiliation should not be the only determining factor in whether or not a citizen casts a ballot in his/her favor. While a religious stance by a politician may shed some light on his/her personal moral character. It does not guarantee an accurate reflection of morals, however. Not to say that a candidate would be wrong in revealing his/her religious belief system, but to do so merely for the sake of attracting more votes is most definitely unethical. More intriguing than the first question, in my opinion, is the second question. It asks whether it is important for a candidate to express some form of religious views. Whether it is a good or a bad thing, the fact of the matter is that in America voters find confidence in a candidate whose religious views in some way reflect their own. This is simply a characteristic of humanity in that when given the chance humans tend to put the person that they relate to best in power because they feel it is the closest thing to putting themselves in power that they can achieve. While there I have no evidence to support my thought (which is all that it is) I feel as though there may be at least some substance to it.

Religion should not have a place in the security of our society. I have learned to play the game, treating Jesus the same as Santa Claus. The job of the clergy is to enslave the minds of the masses and to perpetuate the myth of a supreme being. Their livlihood depends on it.

Prayer can be dangerous to a persons well being. If the subject of the prayer were treated as a problem and apply problem solving techniques to it I think it could be beneficial. However. most people use prayer to shift the burden of his safety from himself. This could be the last time he failed to shoulder his own responsibility.

To flippertie

You wrote, “your points seem unclear and incoherent and have no relevance to the discussion”.
That may be. Sometimes when we write things we “hear” what we mean to say, but between the brain and the pen things can get short-circuited. I’ll have a go at clearing it up for you. If you think it is relevant or not when you see what I was really trying to communicate I’ll leave that up to you. At the very least I will plead as all perpetrators tend to do that, “Ok you caught me, but everyone else was doing it too!” I will say though that after you assumed I was using an angry or strident tone that it may have colored how read my questions.

The whole intent behind my list was to motivate people to think about why it is that almost every post (many of them angry and dismissive of religion in general) wanted to use the law to limit religion’s role in government, but seemingly no one was asking if the knife cut both ways. If the “separation between church and state” is used to keep religion from controlling government shouldn’t government keep it’s hands off of religion?

My mistake about the Church of England. On their website it breaks down how much money they raise and where it comes from. I read that 60 million pounds comes from the “Inland Revenue in tax”, but I’m not even sure what that means. I get someone to do my own taxes because it’s too complex for me!

Hope that clears things up a little for you.

"By his deeds you will know him." Seems to me that past actions and accomplishments are more important in analyzing a candidate than an answer to a question about a candidate's personal religious beliefs.

First, let me say many of you have given me much to think about after my first couple of posts on here. I don't think that in my adult life I have even given a thought to what a person running for public offices religion was. This is a first for me and I do believe it is because I have had such a hard time with how Bush has seemed to bring his religious beliefs into his presidency. Until now, even when Jimmy Carter ran, I never even gave much of a thought to his religion. I concentrated on their stand on the issues. I don't remember, but could be wrong, thinking about how their religion would effect their decisions. So maybe I have had my head in the sand. Personally though I have been around for a fair amount of time as far as presidents go and never have I had such a problem with a presidents religious beliefs and how it seemed to effect his decisions.

I have been thinking out loud. Thanks for listening.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

Thank you for educating me on Islam. What a sham religion! But well, I freely chose to remain a stupid Muslim.

It's the Qur'an, not Koran. And its the Taliban, not Talibaners.

Wish to start a collection of discarded/unread books to sent to the mullas/wannabes to educate them on western thought? I'm all for it. But do send books written by F. Scott Fitzgerald, MFK Fisher, Truman Capote, Don de Lillo etc. They wrote in beautiful English. We want to improve our English to communicate with you better.

I was disappointed when the Washinton Post introduced the 'On Faith' section on their front page, and the above article supports my initial disdain.

Regardless of my own beliefs, no expression of faith can be made genuinely or usefully when the mainstream media will make it front-page material, as you are doing. Religion and politics do not mix. For those who think they do, see 'Theocracy'.

'On Reason' would have been a better forum for the Post to fund, because making religion a political football in support of the Post's bottom line is a losing strategy. Especially for a news organization that needs to be perceived as neutral.

Comment after comment, viewers deny the validity of the hocus-pocus, dogma, and medieval indoctrination you posit as legitimate discourse.

Perhaps the Post has faith that God can save their pathetic reputation from further flushing?

I suggest you get this garbage off your page before you lose the little bit of journalistic credibility that remains to you in this town.

Richard Merritt

So many people have posted on this thread after mine. Sounds like mine pushed one of your buttons. I agree with everything you said and by the way I have visited D.C. often and enjoy the all it has to offer.

Thanks for reminding me.

I believe it is not only okay, but also necessary for a candidate to express what his/her views are and what forms or directs their decision making process. As for using religious rhetoric, no I do not believe that their religios practices should be brought into the political arena. This is a place for all to unite as what is truly best for all Americans and not departmentalize due to race, religion, or self-promotion.

When I meet someone that has been born again, or walks with the lord, or prays to the east 5 times a day, I just can't wait to end the conversation and move on. The phony act of blind adherance to an ancient story is rediculous. The moral standard the country has set for a candidate should be something other than this blind devotion to a mythical being and a heavenly world with angels, gold streets, and 72 virgins. it's sad.

GABY- scholars dislike the anglicized Koran because it corrupts the pronunciation of the word- Qur'an can be written in english and is much closer to the actual word itself- so its an issue of trying to stay as close as possible to the original.

Also the word Koran was introduced by orientalists in the late 19th early 20th century and was invariably diatribes against it- so theres that association too-

personally- i always try heartily to pronounce peoples names as they themselves do- i have surprised many chinese people by pronouncing their names correctly- it shows an extra effort and respect for them that is usually appreciated.

its a subtle thing and not anything to get worked up about- the only reason i mentioned it was to point out to CCNL that his source was clearly not an islamic one- i maintain that one should always go to the source in their representations of other views- and let people speak for and define themselves-

thats why i will only post a jewish perspective on judaism etc... if you ever see me do otherwise you please call me out on it---
salaams

Some people of religious ilk are open to the point of gullibility and have not one ounce of skeptical sense, so much so , they can't distinguish useful ideas from worthless ones .There is no guarantee of transcendent purpose or supernatural significance. When you are taken by such spooky suggestions and unreasonable proposals you will remain immature your entire life . You must learn how to rationally and reasonably make decisions. Don't rely on ghosts and spirits!!!

To Pam Meloy (author of the 1st post today):
Fine.....If you believe that religion has No place in Government, here's a suggestion: You are no longer allowed to use any U. S. Currency since every coin and bill we have says, "In God We Trust"!. Also, you are no longer allowed to visit Washington, D. C. since the U. S. Supreme Court has Moses holding the Ten Commandments on the building, nor are you allowed to visit any National Cemetary, since these are operated by the Federal Government, and most of the headstones have religious symbols on them. Get used to having to use your credit cards or a debit card or a check, NO CASH FOR YOU! It's also a shame that you won't get to go to the nations capitol, there's a lot of history up there, but you've made your bed, now you have to lie in it. Have a nice day.

Wiccan,

Indeed, Jim Jones and David Koresh were significantly stupid people. Jim Jones and his crazies committed group suicide if I remember correctly. We should be so fortunate to have the "Talibaners" do the same thing. The Koresh debacle was a series of errors. They should have been starved out of their compound. Both groups violated the Fifth Commandment so they definitely were not Christians.

Neither group posed a threat to global peace. The same cannot be said for the signficantly stupid Sunni, Shiite and "Talibaner" jihadists as they follow the Koran commandment of Thou Shall Kill Unbelievers (to include unbelievers in some grandkid or uncle of the "prophet").

We should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and then build an US Air Force/US Navy wall around these countries and then let them annihilate each other.

To A Hermit-

Thanks for your post today at 11:06 am. I was researching my facts to post a reply to CTCNL when I saw your excellent rebuttal.

To CTCNL:

"Wahli said the man also declared himself the Mahdi, the reappearance of the 12th imam, or leader of the faithful, who many Shiites believe vanished in the 10th century and whose return will mark an era of redemption and peace."

Does the name "David Koresh" mean anything to you? How about "Jim Jones"?

I would say that "significant stupidity" is an universal human trait, not just a Muslim one.

Hi Victoria,

Why is it an insult to spell the Qur'an Koran? In my opinion it's no different than spelling the German town Koeln Cologne in English. I can pronouce Koran, that doesn't necessarily hold true for Qur'an.

And the significant stupidity of the followers of Islam continues as per the following news item in this morning's paper:

"This is a new step in the annals of terrorism,said Iraq's minister of national security, Shirwan al-Wahli. He said the fighters were led by a man known as the Judge of Heaven, who claimed to be a direct descendant of the prophet Muhammad's son-in-law, Ali. Wahli said the man also declared himself the Mahdi, the reappearance of the 12th imam, or leader of the faithful, who many Shiites believe vanished in the 10th century and whose return will mark an era of redemption and peace."

Where do these mullahs/"wannabe" imams get their education? Do they ever read anything besides the Koran aka Qur’an (both words listed in English dictionaries) ? Some recommended books, The Life of St. Francis of Assisi, Ghandi, and the NT (minus the embellishments of physical resurrections and ascensions into heaven), for starters.

Second comings are not going to happen no matter what the religion!!!

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated :

I asked you this before in another thread, and never saw an answer.

Do you, as a Christian, feel you should be apologizing for the slaughter of 7,000 Muslims in Srebrinica? For the genocide in Rwanda ("The most Christian nation in Africa"), for the interfatih war between Serbian Orthodox Christians and Catholic Croats? For the Baptist funded terrorists in Tripura? The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda?

There are lots of different kinds of Muslims, just as there are lots of different kinds of Christians. We all deplore the violence of the radical Islamists, but for you to pile their crimes onto the shoulders of innocent Muslims like those we are talking to here is as unfair as if someone held you responsible for the atrocities carried out by other Christians.

Now, I'm no defender of Islam, or any other religion, I find claims of divinely revealed truth to be unconvincing at best and often inherently dangerous, but I have found it is best to treat people as individuals, to respect their faith even if I do not share it and not to make assumptions based on ignorant stereotypes, as you do here.

The fact that you have latched onto the "Sunni/Shia" divide as representative of all Muslims betrays your ignorance. Do you think a Sufi mystic shares the same political beliefs as an Al Qaeda extremists? That a moderate Shiite in Michigan applauds the extremism of the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia? They are as different as the Amish farmer is from the IRA.

We will never solve the divisions of this world until more people take the time to educate themselves and learn to deal with each other as human beings, not stereotypes.

You have a long way to go.

Regards

A Hermit

The nuances of the meaning of "jihad" in the Qur'an are interesting but irrelevant, in my view. What matter is that some believers see the Qur'an as God's command to kill unbelievers. We wouldn't have debates over the meaning of scripture if we did away with the idea that any book is the word of deity.

Liberated, while I share many of your concerns about abortion, I don't think that issue should even be a part of this discussion. No religion has a monopoly on concern for human life. There are plenty of pro-lifers who don't belong to any religion, and there are plenty of Christian pro-choicers.

holy cannoli batman what are you doing up at 2:30 am liberated?

there is no term called holy war - that is taken from the crusades- just like the latin term infidel(from infidelus- unfaithful)

they are both terms used by the crusaders-
holy war- a crusader describes their own mission
infidel- a crusader describes a non-believer or saracen (arab) in jerusalem

it is always easy to pick out a westernerpretending to be muslim when they use these terms which are
well- based in western lore---

Also just as a hint- it is something of an insult to spell the Qur'an that way- something that westerners also do-

dead giveaways lib

peace and good night

The definition of jihad as portrayed by the daily activities of the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites, the Iranian Shiites and the Afghan "Talibaners":

"jihad (ji-hahd, ji-had)

In Islam, a holy war; a war ordained by God. The Koran teaches that soldiers who die in jihad go to heaven immediately.

Modern-day terrorists often claim that they are carrying out acts of destruction, such as the attacks on the World Trade Center towers, as part of a jihad. "

To change the definition will require a rewriting of the Koran and the end of the significantly stupid butchery imposed by Sunnis on Shiites and vice versa.

Hi Daniel- nice to see you back-
Tongue-in-cheek is a term that refers to a style of humour in which things are said only half seriously, or in a subtly mocking way.

Tongue-in-cheek humour in fiction often takes the form of gentle parodies. Such stories seem to abide by the conventions of an established serious genre, while in reality, they gently poke fun at some aspects of that genre.

Actually I didnt mean Jihad was fooling around- i saw it from the perspctive that she is gently poking fun at peoples misconception about the very important and most miused word from islam

There is no sense of meaning terrorism in Jihad at all- its a positive struggle-
While you are asking her to be sensitive- should we be sensitive of lack of knowledge?

If children are afraid of the bogeyman, to we coddle that fear or tell them the bogeyman doesnt exist? (no parallels just analogy)

We are all adults here and if someone is afraid of a word- then there is an obligation to remove that fear and replace it with solid knowledge.

By any standards Jihadist is a most excellent name for a faith forum because its meaning is someone who vigorously pursues their own faults and weaknesses with the intent of correcting them and
pursuing their spiritual path with tenacity and dedication.

Its looking at the beam in our own eyes under a microscope- so to speak- it is self analysis and critque with the goal of perfecting our own beings.

SID HARTH thanks for the love- actually- since ive noticed that the moderators pay more attention at the beginning of these questions- it wasnt really directed at anyone here- but to the moderators as they seem to be posting more politically geared questions- and we still have 2 years before the election and there are 1000s of political blogs but this is a special site as there just arent many outlets for interfaith discussion available-
so it wasnt intended as a wisecrack- but a gentle chide- as one of the consumers of this site- to let the people running it know that some of us are interested in faith based dialogue- since its called on faith- it seemed a reasonable remark to me.

And actually SID HARTH- perhaps you also failed to notice that the first post was also by me- the definition of the word rhetoric- do you think i posted the definiton of the word rhetoric to-
1)endorse rhetoric or
2)call attention to the actual meaning of the word?

guess which-

Liberated- you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
salaams all

Jihadist,

I still don't see you or Victoria taking to task the militantcy of Islam. Ann Coulter is not teaching young Christians to be suicide bombers like the mullahs do to Moslem boys and girls on a daily basis. I find it ironic that Islamic girls are allowed to commit suicide on behalf of your Allah but the same Allah does not provide her with the same protection or grand time in Heaven as Hedoes for Moslem males.

Your "religion" is a sham in today's world. It is time to rectify the Koran by removing its hatred of non-believers, its promises of heavenly virgins to the "extreme" elements and the degradation of women in the Islamic world.

Christians finally grew up. Time for Islam to do the same!!!

The mullahs should be a thick-skinned as you say you are and allow mockery of your "prophet" go without turning the followers into raving lunatics everytime someone criticizes him.

Sid Harth,

Victoria' sentence, "there is little faith in this discussions" is "vulgar and demeaning"?

I can't believe the amount of bile and rants Victoria has to go through here when she seek to correct some poster's understanding and/or perceptions on Muslims and Islam.

And Hindu or Muslim, as Americans (if you are one), don't you all respect and practice the much promoted and vaunted "freedom of speech" in the US?

Telling her to go read Good Housekeeping is sexist and dismissive. Everyone is entitled to their opinions here. Including you. But what you posted on Victoria is an uncalled for and unwarranted personal attack.

As you pointed out, this forum is about the impact and effect of faith (or otherwise) in our private and public lives.

Victoria is correct about "little faith in the discussions". Many questioned their own religious faith, or had their religous faith questioned and challenged by others. And it was every educational for all.

We also seem to have little faith in our secular leaders, our religious leaders, and our fellow men judging by many postings here.

So, step back and ease up on Victoria. It is not personal. She is just making a general observation.

And I look forward to your personal attack on me and to let it pass.

May peace be with you.

My dear Victoria,

In your little comment at the beginning, paraphrasing, 'there is little faith in these discussions.'

My dear friend, I take strong objection to such vulgar and demeaning remarks. I love you, even then. You are one of those slightly on the stricter side of the spectrum, religious believers' colorful spectrum, only little the right side, right not meaning correct, the wrong side of the faith, in my honest opinion.

What, in the heavens, are you talking about? You apper that this forum being not enough "Faith-bound?" We are talking about, effects of associations with the religious bodies and thoughts being used, and/or abused by the clever politicians to maximise their effectiveness in catching fat-worms of blind believers like your goodself, of course, in their political campaigns, awash with legal, illegal pac-money.

We are on the right track before you made your wise-crack about faith. Not good enough, my dear sister. Scientific reasons and justifiable rationaale of faith being used by politicians is the main topic. If you get bored, get out of this forum. Good House Keeping magazine may have something more suitable for your mild taste. We, the participants want thoughtful answers and/or commentaies like mine on the very specific questions raised, not a campaign rhetoric for the Faith. Capital F, if you please.

Bless you all.

I am Hindu, if you did not notice.

Sid the Brave Harth

First and foremost a politican should be himself, but it seems that is not possible anymore. If the politican before he/she became a politican would bring their religion into their ordinary conversation, then they should do so when they run for office. If they didn't they shouldn't. I think now everything a major politican does is governed by polls. They are no longer leaders, but rather followers of positions they think will get them elected.

DANIEL,

You're right on the difference between Lesser Jihad (war) and Greater Jihad (the personal struggle within oneself to be the best one can be)

And, yes, Victoria is right in my being tongue in cheek knowing fully well the western aversion towards the word Jihad. Trust me, Victoria knows the difference and saw why I use it.

I took the name Jihadist to reclaim it from my warped fellow Muslims who abuse it for their own ends. They even justified the killings of non-combatants, including women and children. A definite no in the Al Qur'an. It infuriates me that Jihad now has a negative connotation for such abuse and misuse of the term by my anarchistic fellow Muslims who breaks every Islamic tenets about war and Jihad.

GREG

You are right about characterizing the Shiites and the Sunnis as Catholics and Protestants in some way.

The split comes about after Prophet Muhammad PBUH death. The nascent Muslim community then has to decide who is to be their leader. The Prophet is said to never named a successor by the group that become the Sunnis. So, they, by acclamation pick the best man. The group that becomes the Shiites insisted that the Prophet designated Ali, his son in law and cousin as his successor, and should lead the Islamic community.

Over the centuries, the battle sharpened and to this day the Shiites believe the Imams/Leaders of Islam should be the descendants of the Prophet from Ali and his daughter Fatima.

And the Shiites have a formal cleric system - hojatolislams, mullahs, and ayatollahs. Ayatollah Khomeini is venerated as the Catholics would venerate the Pope and his fatwas are similar to the Papal Bull. However, in Shiite Islam, the Muslims are free to chose the Ayatollah whose religious guidance and fatwas (legal or religious opinion) they wish to subsribe to.

Sunni Islam is, compared to Shiite Islam, a "disorganized church". Anyone can lead prayers as Imam thought the mosques now have resident imams. Anyone who thinks he knows Islam has been issuing fatwas, which rightly should be by the Grand Muftis in all Islamic countries.

Even then, Sunni Muslims are free to follow the fatwas or otherwise. Muslim states do enact and enforce into laws not fatwas but matters related to family, marriages, divorces etc - as Shariah laws.

On fatwas, no Sunni Muslim and even Shiite Muslim takes up on Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa on the death sentence against Salman Rushdie.

And yes, the Sunni and Shiite dispute is almost like the Protestant-Catholic disputes in Christendom. My Iraqi Sunni friends tells me they don't want to live under a Shiite Islamic theocracy like in Iran. Sunni Muslims are averse to that. Imagine Protestants being ruled by priests, bishops and popes. And that is also why Sunni Muslims are averse to the Taliban too, even if they are Sunnis for they want to impose a theocracy.

Of course, the Shiites and the Taliban will give you a different perspective. I am a Sunni Muslim of the Shafie school if you want to go into details :)

In spite of that, Muslims identify themselves as Muslims, not Shiites or Sunnis if you ask any. The finer details comes later.

Jihadist,

Ann Coulter? She is interesting to read, but I don't take her that seriously. And she is very polarizing, most either love or hate her, kinda like Hillary Clinton. When I do read her columns I know she has an agenda.

I always split Muslims into two categories. The moderate group which is in no way responsible for 9/11 etc... And the extremists who fan the flames of violence and discord and dishonor that they supposedly believe in. I don't need to defend Islam because it's not responsible for the bloodshed. It's the extremists who get the blame for that.

BTW what caused the split anyway between the two groups? It reminds me of the bloodshed in Europe between the Protestants and the Catholics way back when.

To Jihadist from Daniel. I know the full meaning of the word jihad--that it does not necessarily mean terrorism, that it can also mean the struggle within to come closer to God--but it is pretty insensitive of you to use that name on a Western forum without clarifying the difference. Not everyone knows the meaning--the subtleties--of the word. Or is it you are not concerned about such? And why not concerned? You do seem concerned about Muslims being misconstrued from what I can tell by your other statements. Even a Muslim such as Victoria seems unaware of the subtleties of the word jihad. Read her defense of you a few posts back. She says you are just being tongue in cheek (which just means fooling around if you are unfamiliar with Western figures of speech). Why a Muslim such as Victoria (who constantly posts in defense of Islam) does not know the subtleties of the word is another good question....

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

Had fun? I did, reading your postings here and I'm sure other readers too. You are so funny :)

Of course you do know that there is the Lesser Jihad, and there is the Greater Jihad. And you are certainly aware that Jihadist is coined in English by the Anglo-Saxon world. And you do know the Arabic/Muslim word for those engaged in Lesser Jihad is Mujahid.

Interesting that when non-Muslims tried to be fair to Muslims in spit for spat, they have to qualify it with saying, "I am not defending Islam but.." Not PC to be defending Islam which seems to be on trial since 9/11. This is a world first. A whole religion on trial for the acts of some who happened to be Muslims:)

At least you are not Ann Coulter who said, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". She is, I understand, a very well educated and venerable public figure in the US, a trained lawyer, who often pop up on US national TV and is widely syndicated in newspapers.

What do foreigners know eh, about American bigotry. No wait, it wasn't. Coulter and Concerned the Christian Now Liberated are just provocateurs, forcing us to think and rethink!!! In the Islamic world, we call those among us who spout such statements fanatics.

And nah, we never always rationalize them saying such things as a prime example of free speech. We call them libel, slander or hate speech, depending on the intensity of their statements.

Concerned, thanks for your concern on Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis. If only they knew, they'll stop killing each other and shower you with flowers for making them see the truth about themselves. But I will pass it on to them.

Tonio,

Eric Rudolf is serving three consecutive life terms. Hopefully the global jihadists will serve a similar fate if not worse. This should include their mullahs who convince them they are acting as "messengers of god" when they kill fellow Muslims and non-believers.

Randall Terry's commentary should be condemned by all Christians to include leaders and groups such as the Crusade.

On the other hand, Christian leaders must continue to support human life in all its forms. See http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/columnists/16561108.htm for a recent review of abortions in the USA. Something is very wrong with a country that permits over one million abortions annually.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070128_christianists_on_the_march/

"Mike Campbell, what is the difference between a "true" belief and a "false" belief? And who says what the difference is?
Belief reveals intelligence? Bush's judgment (unless you believe in "rapture", lol!) as a "believer" should disprove this argument once and for all, except for a - true believer, who thinks that belief produces intelligence."

Well, the difference between a true belief and a false belief is that a true belief is true and a false belief is false. Belief is different than knowledge in that knowledge is definitive certainty whereas belief is based on probability. One who believes more true things than false things is more intelligent than the one who believes more false things than true things, for belief is discovered through an investigation of the truth, like I said.

If one believes that Jesus Christ was actually born from a virgin, then they do not know this because it cannot be proven definitively. So they believe it based on faith rather than the probability of it being true, for the probability of that story being a true story is less than the probability that it is not true. This is why faith is irrational, thus religious folk are irrational as well. Faith is belief without sufficient reason; belief without the required probability. Thus the public ought to take note if and when a politician openly admits that they believe in these things that require irrationality, for the probability that their judgment may be guided by irrationality in other instances, instances where the country is affected, is greater than the probability would be if the politician used only reason when making judgments about the truth.

I.E., closing the books on stem cell research. This is a judgment based on irrationality.

Victoria,

Bad manners is your continuing support of Islam which last year alone was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Victoria,

Bad manners is your continuing support of Islam which last year alone was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

So basically liberated you have nothing new to say?

this is it in a nutshell -

i will condemn or not condemn whosoever i will

your phony facade of caring about muslims anywhere is belied by your constant hateful speech in regards to muslims

if i do condemn anyone anytime it will be my conscious choice- not because i am being taunted or goaded by someone who hates my religion

it is simply not your business what my relgion is

it is clear you have nothing of your own to say and without islam as a catalyst to hide your own projected angers behind- you have no other opinions-

it is not necessary for me to justify my existence in any way to satisfy your needs.

when you stop insulting my relgion and myself by comparison- i will consider answering you with civility.

so you control whether you are answered by this oh so pressing question

my lack of answer is dependent on your lack of manners

and has been with total consistency

by stating that i should condemn anyone you are basically telling me what to answer you

perhaps you would do better if you asked a question with respect- instead of framing it so that you dictate the answer

clear enough?
good manners are responded to
bad manners are ignored
it rests with you
salaams

"You have a reference(s) saying that the Campus Crusade for Christ is butchering fellow Christians or demanding slaying of non-believers?"

I think it's reasonable to want groups such as the Campus Crusade to condemn certain acts carried out in the name of Christianity. Examples include Eric Rudolph's murderous rampage, or Randall Terry's open promotion of hate and intolerance.

Hermit,

You have a reference(s) saying that the Campus Crusade for Christ is butchering fellow Christians or demanding slaying of non-believers?

Victoria,

Are you Sunni or Shiite? Islam is divided into these two warring factions, a war that has been ongoing before oil entered into the debate. Condemn your Islamic brothers for the slaughter. Did you see the news yesterday? Sunnis and their foreign terrorist brothers tried to kill the religious head of the Shiites. Where is your condemnation?

LIBERATED-

BOILING HATRED? KILLING? MAIMING?
BUTCHERY?

i think its just remotely possible that you are PROJECTING your own feelings onto others?

liberated- were listening-

do you have ANYTHING to say that is an original thought or outside of the realm of knee jerk emotional negative responses to muslims?

what would you find to talk about without us to rail against?

you used to be concerned the christian and then you became concerned the christian now liberated

did you have some sort of epiphany on these boards?

maybe you could share that with us instead-
were all pretty well aware by now that youre not in favor of islam-
what are you in favor of?
what is it that youve become liberated from?

hermit can always be counted on to be a voice of reason here.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

In the interest of equal time we await your condemnation of the Campus Crusade for Christ considering the butchery of Muslims, Jews and even other Christians carried out in the name of "Crusade".

Keep in mind, I'm not defending Islam here, just pointing out that the beam in the Christian eye is at least as big as the one you see in the Muslim's.

Regards

A Hermit

Victoria,

Reiterating the truth about the hatred boiling in Islam is necessary to keep crazy "jihadists" from killing and maiming.

Using the name "Jihadist" is hardly "tongue in cheek" considering the butchery of fellow Muslims done under this name.

liberated- when a person takes it upon themselves to be self-deprecating on their own- its really kind of redundant andpointless for you to restate it and jump on it as if youre making a new point yourself-

were not proposing slaughtering kittens here-
your over reaction to every statement made from a muslim perspective is getting dull-

also- has it not occurred to you that a name lke jihadist just might be tongue in cheek?

Mike Campbell, what is the difference between a "true" belief and a "false" belief? And who says what the difference is?

Belief reveals intelligence? Bush's judgment (unless you believe in "rapture", lol!) as a "believer" should disprove this argument once and for all, except for a - true believer, who thinks that belief produces intelligence.

Jihadist,

You noted:

"I (i.e. the Jihadist) sound like a detestable Muslim apologist."

Yes, you do!!! And your name is indicative of that.

You also noted:

"Now, who is going to apologize for the Iraq debacle?"

You and your fellow Sunnis and Shiites and "Talibaners" should due to the centuries of butchery against each other to include the stoning and killing of women for simply being women desiring to be human.

Victoria,

Enjoy your freedom and consider yourself fortunate that you do not live in a Islamic country!!

I find it impossible not to be curious as to what politician’s beliefs are with respect to the ultimate question there is to life: what is the meaning to it?

The fact of the matter is that beliefs produce actions and reveal intelligence. Therefore, a politician’s belief or disbelief in God ought to be shared with the public.

The issue has an answer to it, despite the fact that we will never truly find it; there either IS a god or there IS NOT a god. Beliefs are discovered through an investigation of the truth. A politician who has more true beliefs than false beliefs has better judgmental abilities than one who has more false beliefs than true beliefs. Therefore, a politicians’ belief or disbelief or lack there of belief can be an indicator of the judgmental abilities that he or she possesses.

DRYICE- there is no way to get around the point of that video is there? out of the mouths of babes-
i cant say anything because it speaks for itself-

JIHADIST- concerned the liberated is one of those that expects every muslim to be responsible for the action of every other on the planet-

you finally got an answer for your question concerned-

i agree mo- smart people dont want the boss's job-
i always say the only reward for hard work is more work-

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

Islamic tirade? That's a new one. Nah, that new labelling and/or phrase won't deter me. I'm used to western/christian tirades about Islam, the sham religion and way of life. Of course it is a reprehensible religion full of delusional believers in God :)

I was quite on topic re politicians who expressed their personal religious views and to use religious rhetoric. I focussed on those expressing their views on Islam and not on other religions, including on Judaism, Wiccanism, Mormons etc. and the consequences of the personal views. I would not presume to do so. Of course I focussed on western politicians and figures as you would know them.

You have to ask the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites why they are killing each other so much after the invasion and occupation of Iraq - who gets what, when and how over oil and control for Iraq. And who aided and abetted either sides for geopolitical control of the country and its resources. They have plenty to say about that, and American officials and military personnel has been on record to say - better for them to kill each other rather than us.

Peace be with you while bombs is raining on my Muslim brothers' and sisters' heads in Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan to liberate them.

I sound like a detestable Muslim apologist. Now, who is going to apologize for the Iraq debacle?

the creator lord and the state.
the creation is perfect,the sun never collide with the moon,nor the moon ever collide with the sun.the physical universal clock of the general universe is perfect.its impossible ,the perfect creator to creat this perfect universe but forget about the -state-.the perfect creator sent light and guidance to the state,but the state either not interested or not exposed to or ignorant about,yet the state need bread and jusice for survival,the state eat and devour the lushy bread of the creator,but when it comes to his justice,the state isnot interested.yet survival of the state need justice .,the elite,the influenced and the wealthy are the ones who they draw the justice system for the state ,in the absence of the justice of the creator.this is life.the book of life says,the boss is not always right but he is always the boss.the book of life also says,be as bossy as you can be but certainly you will pay for it one day.smart people usually do not apply for -boss- position.

Jihadist,

Who and what brought about your Islamic tirade? And when the Sunnis and Shiites stop butchering each other, you might have some reason to think Islam is a way of life. Right now it is a sham considering that its two major groups continue to kill and maim each other in the name of Allah and some decendents of the "prophet".

What I learn since the Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses", the Prophet Muhammad PBUH cartoon contrversy, the Pope Benedict speech on the Prophet, Jack Straw (the former British foreign secretary who asked one of his consituent to remove her veil), and Rep. Goode's statement about an American Muslim congressman is that, after all the flap they caused, they all said in essence (to the point of cliches) - I stand by what I said, and I regret your reactions. Or - I don't agree with what you said, but I will defend your right to say it. Or - I said what is needed to be said and I want to start a debate.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, and one should really tell the world what one really thinks. Of course, one must be prepared for the fall out, the ire and reactions on religious rethoric and religious views. As that wonderful American expression has it - he can dish it out, but he can't take it.

News Cynic,
No one is answering you because your points seem unclear and incoherent and have no relevance to the discussion in which you've repeatedly posted them. I think I understand the rhetorical meaning behind some of your questions - but from the tone of them I can be pretty sure that any reasoned reply would/will be received as an invitation to be shouted at. Briefly here are some examples of what I mean:
#1
1. Can the state force a gay church to higher a straight pastor who thinks homosexuality is a sin?
**I think you mean 'hire'. I'm guessing your underlying point is something to do with the state having already forced 'straight' churches to appoint gays. Not clear to me.

Does the wall separating church & state go both ways?
**Is that a koan? don't walls always go both ways? I'm guessing you have a point about the state interfering in religion or religion interfering in the state - not clear to me.

#2. Should a church be able to force people to be members & pay dues?
**The obvious answer is no. I'm guessing you have some subtext about someone being forced to do something - not clear to me.

The Church of England is supported in part by taxes.
** Wrong. The C of E owns huge tracts of land in the UK and gains it's income from them. Where does this fit into the existing discussion? Not Clear to me...

Etc. Etc. Hope that goes some way to explaining why no one answered you before

Dear Panelist, today I am stunned! Today I am outraged! Today, as an member of the Episcopal Church I am horrified and ashamed of the political mockery that a well meaning member of my Church has perpetrated on African Americans in this Country! The cynical black-faced race-baiting political garbage that the GOP has used since the days of Nixon stink to high heaven! I ask you to review the following clip regarding the historic doll test which formed the basis of the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court Decision. I am so profoundly disgusted with the United States right now I can not talk....
http://www.komotv.com/home/video/5001856.html?video=YHI&t=ao

What are you going to do about it America??? If history is any indication let me guess, NOT ONE GOD DAMNED THING!!!!!!!

well the point you made here points to the necessity of knowing what a potential candidates relgious proclivities might be- doesnt it?

what if we removed religion from the political discussion only to discover our newly elected president believed he was going to be swept up in the rapture and had little care for what mess is left behind him (or her)?

The subject of dangerous possibly for politicians believing in rapture has come up in some of the commentary to the panelists' reviews:

My comments on this:

As per Edward Schillebeeckx, contemporary theologian and author, prophets and prophecies are not possible for even God does not know the Future i.e. Future is a subset of the gift of Free Will.

In his book, Church: The Human Story of God, Schillebeeckx notes, "Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For
God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

St. Paul's prophecy about the imminent Second Coming fortunately for us did not materialize but it did convert a lot of Gentiles and indeed opened their purse strings and still does with significantly stupid ideas like rapture.

As an Englishman and atheist, I would say that a good reason not to vote for any politician is if they - the polititian - believe in a supernatural being: it shews lack of intellectual ability.
Also, it is far easier to find an atheist who practises a life along the lines of what Christ is alleged to have taught, than it is to find a Christian who does so; for example, as a general rule, atheists do not go around inflicting wholesale slaughter on other humans. It should be remembered that Hitler declared himself Christian (But he wasn't I hear the religionists shouting) and, of course, we shouldn't forget the inquisition.
Unlike the current president, whose religious belief is obviously as devout as mine, a true Christian would rather die than take the life of another.

As an Englishman and atheist, I would say that a good reason not to vote for any politician is if they - the polititian - believe in supernatural being: it shews lack of intellectual ability.
Also, it is far easier to find an atheist who practises a life along the lines of what Christ is alleged to have taught, than it is to find a Christian who does so; for example, as a general rule, atheists do not go around inflicting wholesale slaughter on other humans. It should be remembered that Hitler declared himself Christian (But he wasn't I hear the religionists shouting).
Unlike the current president, whose belief is obviously as devout as mine, a true Christian would rather die than take the life of another.

Any one?

1. Can the state force a gay church to higher a straight pastor who thinks homosexuality is a sin? Does the wall separating church & state go both ways?

2. Should a church be able to force people to be members & pay dues? The Church of England is supported in part by taxes.

3. Should the state be able to tell a mosque where they can build? Couldn't a city zone groups like that out of their community?

4. Should faith healers and snake handlers be forced to be handicapped accessible? What if they think that shows a lack of faith?

5. If a bunch of friends get together and choose one as “The Grand High Priestess” and then decide to pay her to do that job should the government be able to tax her for a cut?

6. Should a religious person be allowed to run for office?

7. What about Buddhists? Many Buddhists don’t believe in a personal god. So is Buddhism (or Confucianism for that matter) a religion or a value system?

8. Should people who believe in value systems be allowed to run for office or just those who determine right and wrong for themselves?

9. Or, even better, “only those who will go with the flow of whatever society feels is right at the time should be able to hold office?” So if our culture says that owning slaves, killing Jews, or burning mosques is OK - then those people are qualified to hold office (as long as they are not religious)?

10. Only people who think like I do (place yourself in this sentence) should be allowed to run. Every one else is crazy and delusional and can’t think straight! In otherwords should people with certain views (such as those held by The Black Panthers or the KKK) be excluded from the political process or should we let the democratic process weed them out?

When are people going to wake up to themselves????
There is NO God, you are born, live, then die. Man created God, not the other way around.
Look at the mess we have in Iraq, sunnis v sheites v chistian v anyone with a gun.............
It's a joke, yet our political leaders pander the the "devout" bible belt to secure votes, pander to wha