Readers’ Responses to Our Question (105)

I think voting for a president with a spiritual background is what keeps America in line.
Its what lets us know if were going down the right path or not.

JESUS(Isa) A.S. IN ISLAM,
and his Second Coming
by Mufti A.H. Elias
I. Jesus (A.S.) In Islam
Muslims do believe that Isa (A.S.) was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but he (Jesus) is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa (A.S.), also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. We believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world. Like Jesus (A.S.), Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, AS GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE IT TILL THE LAST DAY FOR ALL OF HUMANKIND, UNLIKE SACRED TEXTS OF OTHER RELIGIONS WHICH HAVE MULITPLE VERSIONS AND ARE "REVISED" PERIODICALLY BY MAN. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator.
What the Holy Qur'an says about Jesus:
They slew him not, nor did they crucify him but it was made dubious to them.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157)
Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) himself told of the coming of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). In the Bible, Jesus (A.S.) says,
IF YOU LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. AND I WILL PRAY TO THE FATHER AND HE SHALL GIVE YOU ANOTHER COMFORTER THAT HE MAY ABIDE WITH YOU FOREVER.
(Bible, John 14-15/16)

BUT WHEN THE COMFORTER IS COME, WHOM I WILL SEND UNTO YOU FROM THE FATHER, EVEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHICH PROCEEDETH FROM THE FATHER, HE SHALL TESTIFY OF ME, AND HE ALSO SHALL BEAR WITNESS, BECAUSE YE HAVE BEEN WITH ME FROM THE BEGINNING.
(Bible, John 15-26/27)

I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. How be it when he, the spirit of Truth will come, he will guide you into all truth, FOR HE SHALL SPEAK NOT OF HIMSELF, BUT WHATSOEVER HE SHALL HEAR, that he shall speak, AND HE WILL SHOW YOU THINGS TO COME. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and he shall show it unto you.
(Bible, John 16-12/14)
Ulema (learned scholars in Islam) have said that the person who is described by Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) to come after him - in the above verse - does not comply with any other person but Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).
In this case, the "comforter" he mentions is none other than Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his laws and way of life (Shariah) and Book (Holy Qur'an) are those that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) asks his followers to abide by.
THE "PERSON" WHOM JESUS (A.S.) PROPHECISED WILL COME AFTER HIM, IS CALLED PARGALEETA IN THE BIBLE . THIS WORD WAS DELETED BY INTERPRETERS AND TRANSLATORS AND CHANGED AT TIMES TO "SPIRIT OF TRUTH" AND AT OTHER TIMES, TO "COMFORTER" AND SOMETIMES "HOLY SPIRIT." THE ORIGINAL GREEK AND ITS MEANING IS "ONE WHOM PEOPLE PRAISE EXCEEDINGLY." THE SENSE OF THE WORD, THEN, IS APPLICABLE TO THE WORD MUHAMMAD IN ARABIC, SINCE MUHAMMAD MEANS "THE PRAISED ONE."
Jesus (A.S.) also says in the Bible,
... AND A LITTLE WHILE AND YOU SHALL NOT SEE ME; AND AGAIN A LITTLE WHILE, YOU SHALL SEE ME BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER.
(Bible, John 16:16)
... and the Holy Qur'an says,
And surely they slew him not. But Allah (God) raised him unto Himself.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157-158)
As such, Muslims believe that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) was raised to heaven. According to Hadith, he is on the second heaven. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam=Peace be upon him) mentioned, "During the Meraj (Ascension), I met Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) on the second heaven. I found him of medium stature, reddish white. His body was so clean and clear, that it appeared as though he had just performed ghusal (ablution, cleansing of the entire body) and come." In another Hadith, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) mentioned to the Jews that, " Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) is not dead, he will most surely return to you before Qiyamat (the Day of Judgement)."
May Allah Guide all people to the Truth. Aameen.

PROOF OF GOD!

Opinions are made upon understanding and certain knowledge, which differ from person to person. For some God is a myth, for some they believe or want to believe according to their religion and for some He is as real as His creation. Below are few examples in the favor of their belief:

For Muslims Big Bang Theory is not something new, it is more than 1400 years old, revealed in their Holy Book along with more than 1000 other scientific facts which are happened to be established recently in couple of centuries. And the answers of so many confusing questions which keep us going astray throughout our lives. And as a fact Muslims know they were revealed before discovered and further on top of it that not a single verse of their holy book is in conflict with any logical/scientific approach (infect every time scientific discoveries providing proof in favor of the last revelations), make them more focused/practicing/fundamentalist or what ever others think about them and made it very easy for them to reach to the conclusion...simply apply the scientific rule of Probability....What if it is 100% correct...IF YOU UNDERSTAND PORBABILITY RULE THEN ITS NOT A JOKE !!), very few examples out of All from the Holy book as proof,

I have created all the creatures from earth and all the living beings are made out of water (Chapter 21) (living being which are meant to die/perish)
Don’t you see the earth and sky was together and I separated them, still you don’t believe
(Chapter 21)
I have created sky upon earth for your protection and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)
All the stars, moon and sun are floating in their skies
(Chapter 21)
All the skies are holding with out pillars and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)

For Muslims God means (The One, Ultimate Creator, Who is Uncreated and above time always present before and after time and beyond our limited level of comprehension)

Below is the TOUCH STONE of God that He revealed in Holy Book, when the question about God was raised:
1- He is One and Only
2-the Eternal, Absolute;
, the eternally Besought of all! on Whom all depend.
3-He begets not, nor is He begotten.
4-And there is none comparable unto Him.
And none is like Him.

Please comments are not necessary WITHOUT VARIFICATION/RESEARCH of the original text and authentic translations by ONLY Muslim scholars to avoid any twisting and deceptive techniques IN GENERAL PRACTICE!!

PROOF OF GOD!

Opinions are made upon understanding and certain knowledge, which differ from person to person. For some God is a myth, for some they believe or want to believe according to their religion and for some He is as real as His creation. Below are few examples in the favor of their belief:

For Muslims Big Bang Theory is not something new, it is more than 1400 years old, revealed in their Holy Book along with more than 1000 other scientific facts which are happened to be established recently in couple of centuries. And the answers of so many confusing questions which keep us going astray throughout our lives. And as a fact Muslims know they were revealed before discovered and further on top of it that not a single verse of their holy book is in conflict with any logical/scientific approach (infect every time scientific discoveries providing proof in favor of the last revelations), make them more focused/practicing/fundamentalist or what ever others think about them and made it very easy for them to reach to the conclusion...simply apply the scientific rule of Probability....What if it is 100% correct...IF YOU UNDERSTAND PORBABILITY RULE THEN ITS NOT A JOKE !!), very few examples out of All from the Holy book as proof,

I have created all the creatures from earth and all the living beings are made out of water (Chapter 21) (living being which are meant to die/perish)
Don’t you see the earth and sky was together and I separated them, still you don’t believe
(Chapter 21)
I have created sky upon earth for your protection and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)
All the stars, moon and sun are floating in their skies
(Chapter 21)
All the skies are holding with out pillars and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)

For Muslims God means (The One, Ultimate Creator, Who is Uncreated and above time always present before and after time and beyond our limited level of comprehension)

Below is the TOUCH STONE of God that He revealed in Holy Book, when the question about God was raised:
1- He is One and Only
2-the Eternal, Absolute;
, the eternally Besought of all! on Whom all depend.
3-He begets not, nor is He begotten.
4-And there is none comparable unto Him.
And none is like Him.

Please comments are not necessary WITHOUT VARIFICATION/RESEARCH of the original text and authentic translations by ONLY Muslim scholars to avoid any twisting and deceptive techniques IN GENERAL PRACTICE!!

Senator McCain,

Here is a good article that highlights what should be your focus: the Israeli Lobby that is pushing us over the edge of the abyss. Here are some excerpts:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=26308§ionid=3510302

‘In my analysis, which is shared, for example, by Ilan Pappe, Israel's leading “revisionist” (which means honest) historian, the answer is that it's mainly the Zionist tail that wags the American dog. As I demonstrate in my epic, two-volume book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of The Jews, it is a fact that, with the arguable exception of Lyndon Johnson, every American President, including the idiot in the White House at present, tried to draw red lines that Israel should not cross; and on most occasions Israel put two fingers up and crossed them. There is no mystery about why the Zionist lobby (AIPAC plus) has such power. What passes for democracy in America is for sale to the highest bidder, and one of the highest bidders, and certainly the best organized and the most effective, is the Zionist lobby, now in association with Christian evangelical fundamentalism and parts if not all of the MIC (Military Industrial Complex). The Zionist lobby has three main weapons of influence:

- money, apparently unlimited, to fund election campaigns (candidates who offend Zionism can be and are destroyed - outspent);

- the organized Jewish vote in close election races (in half a dozen critical constituencies); and

- the use of the obscenity of the Nazi Holocaust as a blackmail card to silence criticism of Israel and suppress informed and honest debate. (On this front the Zionist lobby is assisted by the fact that, out of fear of offending Zionism, the mainstream media in America and throughout the mainly Gentile Judeo-Christian or Western world is complicit in Zionism's suppression of the truth of history. What, really, does the media fear? Punishment by the withdrawal of advertising revenue).’

David,
IN ANSWER TO PROOF OF GOD, muslims point of view!!
I haven’t read all the posts but David in reply of your post to me dated:10/02/07.
I understand your point of view David when you refer to spirit. I suggest you to further study the meaning and concept.
To all fella’s no offense and with all due respect, in Bible word trinity is not even mentioned. Even name Bible is not mentioned inside book. In Roman Latin language Bible means book. The closest explanation saying that Holly Ghost, Spirit and Father is one is taken out/removed from the Bible in its latest versions/new additions explained by more than 50 High Priests of Church that it was not mentioned in the most ancient scripts and was a concoction, addition, fabrication in the translations.
More than 50% of the Bible is written by Paul who hardly met once the to Jesus (A.S.) in his life time. Then written by Luke, Mathew and John. And very small part of it is said by Jesus (A.S.) him self. (You can refer to red Bible).
Where Qur’an is the word only that Mohammed (P.B.U.H.) heard and not every thing he said. (Refer to my previous mail Jesus in Islam)
-What Mohammed (PBUH) said other than what he HEARS is called HADITH and is not part of Quran (Muslim Bible). And we also found concoctions in hadith but thousands are preserved and original.
-And what disciples of Mohammad(PBUH) said is even not considered as religious scripture or part of it unlike Christian Bible. It is kept totally separate for other references. I’m not saying Muslims don’t believe in Juses(A.S), they do, and also believe in Original Bible, if there are any proofs of original scriptures of Bible which were in Nazarian language and not in Latin.
And to see the Proof of God, Please read my next post!

--------------------------------------------------
Richard M. Waugaman, M.D. :
Any discussion of religious intolerance needs to acknowledge the sad fact that monotheism is at the root of the problem. Who ever heard of a religious (not territorial, etc.) war between two polytheistic groups? Intolerance flows directly from the belief that the sole God of the universe is on my side, not on your side.
-------------------------------------------------

An apt observation. It took James Madison seven years to get Jefferson's, Statute for Religious Freedom enacted by the Virginia House of Delegates. Guess who vigorously opposed it? THE RELIGIOUS SECTS THEMSELVES!

Each member as well as the sects saw themselves as the "apple of his eye", [as it were] and for years refused to support the declaration of religious freedom for all because each hoped that they would be ordained by the legislature as the official religion of the the Commonwealth.

Madison made the following observations in letter to Jefferson dated August 20, 1785:

"The opposition to the general assessment [a tax to support religious institutions] gains ground. At the instance of some of its adversaries, I drew up the remonstrance herewith inclosed. It has been sent thro' the medium of confidential persons in a member of the upper county[s] and I am told will be pretty extensively signed. The presbyterian clergy have at length espoused the side of the opposition, being moved either by a fear of their laity or a jealousy of the episcopalians. The mutual hatred of these sects has been much inflamed by the late act of incorporating the later. I am far from being sorry for it as a coalition between them could alone endanger our religious rights and a tendency to such an event had been suspected."

From that experience, Madison developed the theory that, in a democratic system, the more religious sects with mutual hatreds there were in the mix the less likely it was that they would combine and endanger the rights of the rest.

He later extended that reasoning to political factions as he developed the Virginia Plan which, at the Convention, served as the point of departure for the Constitution, and led to the separation of powers built in to the Constitution. [See: The Federalist; No. 10]

o well thats different then-

i guess i didnt notice- i tune out the mean posts and the people who make them.

(thats the first ive heard a bat to the head as a blessing, but ill take it!)

am i considered american of i can sing all the commercial jingles from my childhood?

that would mean i have the proper amount of conditioning, wouldnt it?

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

I thought you read all the musings of your fellow "lack of reality" Muslims. One recently noted that all we Americans (I assumed you were not included) were obsessed with fast food/Big Macs and odd sports/baseball. And there you have the reason for wishing Big Macs and baseball bats as blessings upon your head.

lib lib lib lib-

at least you left out the bat upon my peaceful head-
i have to admnit- i thought it said "hat"
at first- and was thinking. "why is lib piling baseball hats and big macs upon my head?"

then i saw it was baseball BAT (which is kind of threatening- well- not kind of- it actually IS )- so im glad you removed it for this post

well, even though we supposedly dont know them, at least i know that
it is thou shalt not murder- not kill.

theres a distinction, a sublte one- but it is there.

funny thing though-
the catholic not even knowing his own precepts, cajoling the muslim who does.(know his precepts)

not big on subtle distinctions, eh lib?

you know im not trying to pick on you-
(although i cant say the same for you in a reciprocal fashion)

i couldnt help pointing this one out

what is your preoccupation with big macs these days?

the sharaia of jeudochristianism.

SECULARISM is the way of life in any society of jeudochristianism .it start way befor washingtonism and jeffersonism,it start when mankind deviated from the divine messeage of moses and jesus son of marry.
what,s all the fuss for?????????????????????????
either you apply the true word of god on every body or accept SECULARISM.
jeudochristianism is just in the boundry of the church .
in a jeudochristianism society :
1-the constitution is based on secularism.
2-the governement is based on secularism.
3-the education system and ideology is based on secularism.
4-the internal policey as well as the external is also based on secularism.
5-the money system is based on secularism.
6-the justice system and the criminal justice system is based on secularism.????????????????????.

jeudochristianism is only an ideology with out methodolgy,the founding father thru history modifyied jeudochristianism by adding secularism in order to touch realism !!!how successful is that ?the proof is in the pudding ,the proof is in the world mass donut.

"If the candidate were a Dispensationalist, we better all be paying attention to his belief system. Do you want a president with an eye on Armageddon and the ability to bring it to realization?"

Too late. We already have a Dispensationalist for our President. I don't want another one! We're voting for President, not Pope.

Honestly, all of these religious tests for public office are unconstitutional and should be offensive to all Americans of all faiths! A candidate's faith should be a factor in people's decisions about who to vote for, but their main decision should be whether they will follow the Constitution. The Constitution does NOT say that America is a Christian nation. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Of our greatest Presidents, two were Masons and Deists (Washington and Jefferson), one was an atheist (Lincoln), and one was an Episcopalian (FDR).

The US does not have a state church. Character, intelligence and wisdom are important criteria for the selection of a leader but religious beliefs are not.

Christians have lost their way in the quest for Cultural hegemony. The way of the world is the love of power. The way of Christ is the power of love. The church will be most influential when it incarnates the love of Christ. The more Christians revert to the love of power instead of the power of love, the more perverted they become. The folly of the gospel is the folly of the power of love instead of the love of power.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

It is obvious that Muslims have never heard of the Fifth Commandment (Catholic list), i.e. Thou Shalt Not Kill!!!!!

And a Big Mac upon your "peaceful/terrorist" Islamic, koranic head!!!!

i found this amusing and thought id share-
it was on religion and ethics weekly last night-


Survey: Ten Commandments Illiteracy

To promote a new movie on the Ten Commandments the producers commissioned a national survey to compare knowledge of the Ten Commandments with knowledge of Big Mac hamburgers. It was no contest. From 60 to 80 percent could name the contents of a Big Mac. Just 45 percent could remember "honor thy father and mother," and only 34 percent mentioned keeping the Sabbath.

Of course I would consider religion-what truly thinking individual would not? A person's religion, (or lack thereof), speaks volumes about a person, it is part of that individual's personal Weltanschauung, (worldview) if you will. Religion is a very important quality to consider in a President-particularly if the Presidential candidate professes to be devout-one needs to examine that, what it means to the candidate to be devout, how is that personal expression of faith expressed outwardly in the candidate's dealings with people and the world her/his family?

Would I vote for someone of the Islamic faith for President? No! That's not our tradition in this country-period. Like it or not, the U.S. IS a Judeo-Christian country-with every other religion under the sun as well-and that is as it should be-but just like you have to be a native-born citizen (non-naturalized) to be President, you have to fall within those religious guidelines as well, IMO-because that is what our country is founded on. However, do I have any problem with a Hindu priest saying a prayer at the opening of Congress? Absolutely not-in fact I like it, and I encourage it-because Congress represents their constitutents, the PEOPLE of the US, and the people are made of all manner of religious faiths-so it is appropriate that all religious faiths be represented there in Congress, Islamic Imams, Unitarians, etc., to show this country's tolerance and inclusivity as regards religious faith.
But as for the President, that's different. The President of the U.S. must be a representative of the majority of people who comprise this country, those who FOUNDED this country-and that means, Judeo-Christian. Nothing personal. I would not expect a Unitarian or a Baptist to become the next PM of Egypt-although I WOULD expect to see a Coptic Christian as PM of Egypt-as Coptics are native to Egypt, and part of its ancient culture-however there is almost no likelihood of that ever happening in the next several decades, unfortunately.

school of governement.
the song of the songs that been and still high pitching at the school of governement is the -right of the people by the people and for the people-.

1-people and governement not only are the same but the subject of each other,separating people from the governement or separating the governement from people is unrealistic if not delusional.
2-separating people from their nature to worship god at their bedrooms as well as the govenement office is not only unrealistic but also anti human and anti people nature and reality.
3-separating people from life and the forces of life is also anti people and anti reality ,the book of life says ,people and governement are mirror to one another if people are good the governemet are good,if people are full of it the governement is also full of it this is one of the reality of life that mankind every where need to understand.
4-separating people or the governement from the creator god of this universe is the bigst crash and the bigst bankrupcey of both governement and people.
5-governement start at people heart.
6-the school of shepherdsyard is the best school of governement ,moses was a shepherd,jesus son of marry was a shepherd,mohamed was a shepherd.they led mankind to the best for mankind till the last day.
7-for hands on training at the school of governement candidate need to take a flock of sheeps and head to the parariri or the rocky mountain and see how tough the governement is if he can mange the sheep he can mange the governement.
8-the main character of a shepherd not only his leading talent and capacity but his ability to connect people to their reality .the reality is every mankind need his creator god at home as well as the governement

To reiterate those famous words:

"Gators vs. Muslims??? Gators definitely will kill. With Muslims, it depends but with the koran as their operating manual can we trust any of them?"

And then there are the flaws in the foundations of Islam:

" Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels"/"pwtfft"s and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda and anti-female agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni, the Taliban brutality especially toward women, suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.

And who funds these acts of terror? The Islamic terror theocracy of Iran, the Third Axis of Evil and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Women status in Quran & Bibles - Truthful Comparison

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L37ntR-9MI0

Status of Women in Islam Part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wn0jJJ4qFuE

Status of Women in Islam Part 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-LKgCvXCNHQ

Listen to this mp3

http://media.snunit.k12.il/kodeshm/mp3/t3005.mp3

recording of a Jewish recital
of their scripture. Seek to time 02:14

Recognize the Name MOHAMMAD?

For more, http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Muhammad-and-Judaism/

Any discussion of religious intolerance needs to acknowledge the sad fact that monotheism is at the root of the problem. Who ever heard of a religious (not territorial, etc.) war between two polytheistic groups? Intolerance flows directly from the belief that the sole God of the universe is on my side, not on your side.

Ironically, Judaism, a major source of the two major monotheistic faiths, did not begin as monotheistic. For the first several centuries, it acknowledged that other peoples worshipped other gods, and acknowledged the existence of their gods. It was increasingly monolatrous-- Jews worshipped only one God. It was only during the Babylonian captivity of the fifth century B.C. that Judaism became monotheistic, out of intolerance for the religious beliefs of the majority of their neighbors in Babylonia.

Religious intolerance is the Achilles heel of monotheism. If Judaism were still monolatrous, just think how ridiculous it would be for the religious settlers in Israel to tell Palestinians in the West Bank, "This is our land, because the one true God of the universe gave it to us!"

Perhaps we can strive to recapture some of the religious tolerance of our polytheistic forebears, who shaped human culture for tens of thousands of years.

Moody,

Could you show any *islamic country* where women have rights as you write.
Although your article is wrong from A to Z,let me correct one,the biggist mistake.*Marry* is the wrong word,men *take* women and whenever he likes he leaves her.

Moody,there is only one *right* of women in islam.That is *the rihgt* of *opening her legs*.

There should be only one creteria to select a candidate and that is the person who is going to be the president should know that his duty is to serve the nation and people irrespective of class,colour,creed etc.

Koran is the only relegious book that says marry one but you can marry upto 4 if you can do justice. Even Bible is not addressing this issue. Their is no room for adultary in any religion, because adultary means no responsibility no commitment, you are just using each other like condums. Considering that look at U.S population. Womens are 9 million more than men. Then their are another 9 million gays in your community. Then 80% of your prisoners are men. Then you tell me how many single moms are thier in your free world. Where no body is responsible for thier wellfare. It looks like exceeding 25 million womens short of men. What options you are providing them.
(a)adultary
(b)prostitution
(c)single moms with kids, no one to take care of, to earn them selves and also do the house work and raise kids. TRIPLE HARDSIP.

WOMENS RIGHTS IN ISLAM:

1- Compulsary education like any muslim.
2- Only men are responsible for thier and their childerns welfare and expenses(father,husband,brother etc), They themselves are not. Even if they are earning men have no right on their earning. Its their property.
3-They have the right in the property, even if it is not earned by them, but men have no right in the property earned by women or inherited by women.
4- They have right of taking divorce.
5- And a right to re-marry.

And their are so many other rights of women in Islam that the IGNORANTS could never imagine.

And as you know womens are more in numbers all over world.

LEPIDOPTERYX AND LEB have got it right. Why can't a candidate with those positions get traction? Conversely, why do the candidates pushing faith based government get the ink and the sound bites?

The answer to those questions should provide insight into what's happening.

I don't care if a candidate worships Gaia, JHWH, Allah, Isadora Duncan, or navel lint. I care about whether s/he will uphold the Constitution even if doing so conflcts with her/his religious beliefs. When it comes to running the country, my Constitution trumps your scriptures every time. If you can't handle that, you don't get my vote.

I think that an electee's personal religious views should be checked at the door. They are in office to represent ALL people in their district/state/country, not to practice their personal beliefs. If you're getting paid with taxpayer dollars, then you need to work in the best interest of all taxpayers. If you want to practice your religion, then be a pastor, not a politician.

Harmony,

Please prove that the Qur'an is twisted by Christians. You have made a statement as do many on these threads but they never support what they say about the Qur'an being twisted by Christians. I think most hear that Islamic talking point and others repeat it.

With the Bible as our bible, who would ever vote for a Christian?

The Bible is twisted by Muslims just as the Koran is twisted by Christians.

"Religion" is for those who are not intelligent or are too lazy to seek God for themselves.

I think that professing to follow any certan religion absolutly demonstrates that we didn't bother to search for ourselves and in turn chose not to grow spiritually.

I would prefer a free-thinker for a candidate, but alas, they all politically must profess alligiance to Christianity to get the masses of sheep to follow.

Duckphup, Excellent post - Thank you

Victoria, thank you, yes, we should be on God's side, not He on ours.

If our leaders were truly followers of Christ, they would have to think - Who would Jesus kill? They would focus on his teachings not just wave the banner of a single religion. Most do not follow his teachings, but merely wave His flag.

Jesus was opposed to the vocal religion of his day. He urged prayer in secret, not in public. He urged tolerence and love for social outcasts, not condemation. He asked for those without sin to cast the first stone. And yet HE did not. He was about forgiveness.

Where are these "Christian" values today? I dare say they are not evident in the "religious right".
They have become the religious WRONG.

In my opinion, any candidate that is steered by these people is dangerous and does not reflect the model intended for our country.

I would consider a candidate only if they followed Christian principles without waving the Christian flag. I don't care what religion a candidate is, only how they conduct themselves. They should have sought their spiritual beliefs from sources other than only the Bible. I believe anyone who has not sought Truth on their own, cannot know their own Truth and cannot accept that others' beliefs are truth to them.

Which religion a person professes is not a measure of that person anymore than what language he speaks. What his heart speaks is.

Duckphup, Excellent post - Thank you

Victoria, thank you, yes, we should be on God's side, not He on ours.

If our leaders were truly followers of Christ, they would have to think - Who would Jesus kill? They would focus on his teachings not just wave the banner of a single religion. Most do not follow his teachings, but merely wave His flag.

Jesus was opposed to the vocal religion of his day. He urged prayer in secret, not in public. He urged tolerence and love for social outcasts, not condemation. He asked for those without sin to cast the first stone. And yet HE did not. He was about forgiveness.

Where are these "Christian" values today? I dare say they are not evident in the "religious right".
They have become the religious WRONG.

In my opinion, any candidate that is steered by these people is dangerous and does not reflect the model intended for our country.

I would consider a candidate only if they followed Christian principles without waving the Christian flag. I don't care what religion a candidate is, only how they conduct themselves. They should have sought their spiritual beliefs from sources other than only the Bible. I believe anyone who has not sought Truth on their own, cannot know their own Truth and cannot accept that others' beliefs are truth to them.

Which religion a person professes is not a measure of that person anymore than what language he speaks. What his heart speaks is.

Religion is "real" only to the rich who can afford to believe in its blessings, and the poor who can't afford not to.

For everyone else, religion is a placebo masquerading as an insurance policy.

Thus spake Mr Mark.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider someone's religion when deciding who to vote for. Unlike, race, gender, or sexual orienation, religion is completely personal choice. It is part of what you believe in, in the same way that your views on abortion, taxes, guns, gay marriage, etc are part of what you believe in. Just as I would not vote for someone who had extreme or irrational views on these kinds of issues, I would not vote for someone who has irrational religious beliefs. If you believe that the world will be ushered in with the return of Jesus Christ and a bloody apocalyptic battle, then, I'm sorry, you do not have my vote. Same thing for Muslims, Jews, or any other religions or groups that have similarly insane beliefs. Just because many people believe these things doesn't make then any less irrational. If a large group of people suddenly started worshipping the sun god, they wouldn't be any more or less irrational than people with "mainstream" religoius beliefs.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider someone's religion when deciding who to vote for. Unlike, race, gender, or sexual orienation, religion is a complete personal choice. It is part of what you believe in, in the same way that your views on abortion, taxes, guns, gay marriage, etc are part of what you believe in. Just as I would not vote for someone who had, from my point of view, irrational views on these kinds of issues, I would not vote for someone who has irrational beliefs. If you believe that the world will be ushered in with the return of Jesus Christ and a bloody apocalyptic battle, then, I'm sorry, you do not have my vote. Same thing for Muslims, Jews, or any other religions or groups that have similarly insane beliefs. Just because many people hold these beliefs doesn't make then any less irrational.

Article VI of the US Constitution has this to say: "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office of public Trust under the United States."

What part of this is difficult to comprehend? Why do the candidates put up with these personal religious "tests"? Why do pseudo patriots worry about the flag pin symbol while ignoring the substance of the nation - its Constitution, without which the flag would be meaningless?

Article VI of the US Constitution has this to say: "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office of public Trust under the United States."

What part of this is difficult to comprehend? Why do the candidates put up with these personal religious "tests"? Why do pseudo patriots worry about the flag pin symbol while ignoring the substance of the nation - its Constitution, without which the flag would be meaningless?

church of christ and temple of founding fathers.

both are part and parcel of jeudochristianity 2 major division:
1-those who preach and glorify the delusion so called son of god who died for the sin of mankind. or the trinity of god although they put their trust in god.
2-those who ran from christianity to their human reasonism wich created another delusion called democracey wich also died for the sin of mankind.
both failed badly in leading and govering mankind to what is good and wholsome.

so far the leading and govering father right now is lord secularism wich is based entirely on (human square reasonism )in the guise of jeudochristianism ,the linen is secularism while the coat is jeudochristianism .

After watching how the Christian Right influenced the Bush administration, I am extremely wary of anyone waving the flag of their religion in politics now. We don't need people paving the way for a theocracy in this country.

After watching how the Christian Right influenced the Bush administration, I am extremely wary of anyone waving the flag of their religion in politics now. We don't need people paving the way for a theocracy in this country.

Mixing religion and politics is a disaster as the Islamic republics have amply demonstrated. This is a no brainer. And over time, people in countries that mix religion and politics tend to become more and more narrow minded in their views. Soon, they start seeing differences even within themselves. Witness what is happening in Pakistan where one group of Muslims are fighting another almost daily.

Mixing religion and politics is a disaster as the Islamic republics have amply demonstrated. This is a no brainer. And over time, people in countries that mix religion and politics tend to become more and more narrow minded in their views. Soon, they start seeing differences even within themselves. Witness what is happening in Pakistan where one group of Muslims are fighting another almost daily.

Mixing religion and politics is a disaster and Islamic republics are a testament to this fact. The state ends up pandering to the majority religion and the minorities are persecuted and their rights trampled. This has happened time and again in Islamic countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Over time, there is a tendency to become still more narrow minded so that even Muslims start discriminating against one another as in Shia versus Sunni versus other sects (e.g., Ahamedias, Aga Khanis, and Sufis).

Therefore modern democracies do not allow the state sponsorship of religion because democratic principles require every resident to have equal rights before the law.

Mixing religion and politics is a disaster and Islamic republics are a testament to this fact. The state ends up pandering to the majority religion and the minorities are persecuted and their rights trampled. This has happened time and again in Islamic countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Over time, there is a tendency to become still more narrow minded so that even Muslims start discriminating against one another as in Shia versus Sunni versus other sects (e.g., Ahamedias, Aga Khanis, and Sufis).

Therefore modern democracies do not allow the state sponsorship of religion because democratic principles require every resident to have equal rights before the law.

Mixing religion and politics is a disaster and Islamic republics are a testament to this fact. The state ends up pandering to the majority religion and the minorities are persecuted and their rights trampled. This has happened time and again in Islamic countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Over time, there is a tendency to become still more narrow minded so that even Muslims start discriminating against one another as in Shia versus Sunni and other sects such as the Ahamedias, Aga Khanis, and Sufis are not considered Muslims (as they do not subscribe to some core islamic beliefs).

Therefore modern democracies do not allow the state sponsorship of religion. If it does, then that's against democratic principles where every resident has equal rights before the law.

Duckpup,

You said,

"Dang... you people who have no capacity for critical thinking are SO damned easy to manipulate."

You are the one that is following the consensus of the society. We "people" are standing against what society is trying to get us to buy. You sir have just accepted what you have been told probably without much thought. Our universities no longer teach people how to think they just feed the masses anti-God anti-American liberal propaganda. If this keeps up we will one day be a totalitarian state with the PC (thought) police controlling the masses. You sound just like most all the non-believing university students I talk to all the time.

DuckPhup,

Wow, you certainly are an angry person. You are cherry picking quotes to fit your own anti-God agenda. I never said they were all Christians I simply pointed out that our nation grew out of a Judeo Western reformation based Christianity. Again that does not mean that all the founders were Christians. Some were and some were not. You cannot get away from the fact that most all of them presupposed God when they looked at the world. This is seen throughout their writings whether they believed in the divinity of Jesus or not.

Do not forget that the puritans had a profound influence on our nation and most all the Ivy League universities trained men for ministry. The greatest philosopher and thinker in the history of our nation Jonathan Edwards was a presbyterian minister. Have you ever read any Edwards? Probably not because you most likely you only consume what you have been spoon fed through the ant-God media and universities in this post-Christian nation.

I would consider a candidate's religion or religious stance only as a negative factor, if the candidate did what candidates nowadays usually do: to express their piety and "faith" publicly AND to either explicitly state or imply that their religiously-inspired or religiously-grounded "values" will inform or influence their decision-making on public policy issues.

The only self-labeled "religious" candidate who will ever receive my vote is the candidate who announces that his or her religion or "faith" is an entirely private matter ("not of this world") and will play no role in the candidate's decision-making while in office. What I want to see and hear is evidence that the religious candidate has successfully compartmentalized his or her mind so that the superstitious, fantasy-prone, credulous, ritualistic parts (which allow him or her to believe in imaginary supernatural beings and other nonsense on the basis of no evidence or lousy evidence) don't interfere with the rational, skeptical, evidence-based thinking processes elsewhere in the brain.

I'm not holding my breath in anticipation, lest I pass out, but it would be refreshing to see and hear a U.S. candidate for federal or state office acknowledge that public piety is no guarantee of honesty, integrity, or decency in everyday behavior, that traditional religious dogma is not the exclusive source (or even a particularly good source) of human moral values, and that having "faith" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for moral conduct.

DG,

You noted: "Afterall, Christ treated slaves and women as equals, fed the poor, cured the sick,and preached against violence. He has my vote."

Jesus said nothing about slaves and some passages indicate an acceptance. Matthew 18:25, Mark 14:66, Luke 12:45-48.

And women, hmmm, Jesus accepted them to a degree but did he push for female rabbis/leaders e.g. the 12 male apostles?? Ditto for Paul although much of the anti-female rhetoric by Paul has been attributed to pseudo-Pauls. (Crossan and Reed in their book, In Search of Paul)

Curing the sick?? Hmmm, there is no medical documentation of this because there was no diagnostic tools for said "sicknesses" in first century Palestine. And many "miracles", are single attestations and appear to be added to the NT to embellish Jesus' biography.

Fed the poor? He and the apostles were typically begging for free room and board. And the replication of fish and loaves, more embellishment if you believe many contemporary NT exegetes. 3±. Bread and Fish: (1?) 1 Cor 15:6; (2) John 6:1-15; (3a) Mark 6:33-44 =Matt 9:36; 14:13b-21 = Luke 9:11-17; (3b) Mark 8:1-10 = Matt 15:32-39; (4) Luke 24:13-33,35; (5) Luke 24:41-43; (6) John 21:9,12-13

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/003_Bread_and_Fish See especially Professor/Father Raymond's Brown's commentary on this site.

And preaching against violence?

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Even the Jesus Seminarians like Professor Crossan accept Matthew 10: 34-39 as being said by the historic Jesus. 74+. Peace or Sword: (1) Gos. Thom. 16; (2) 2Q: Luke 12:51-53 = Matt 10:34-36.
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/074_Peace_or_Sword

McCain said that the Constitution established the United States as a "Christian nation." This shows that either he has never read the Constitution, or that he is whoring for blindly religious voters as hard as he can and will say things that he knows are lies. Since I think he is an intelligent man, I'd go with the second choice. Either one should disqualify him from office.

Robert Novak had a column in today's Washington Post which said that Mitt Romney should proclaim, as JFK did, that his religious affiliation should have no bearing on his qualification for the presidency. I wonder if Mr. Novak would feel the same way about an atheist candidate's (should there ever be one) affiliation...?

If a presidential candidate ever admits to being an atheist, I would be happy to vote for him or her as being an honest and rational person-- rare qualities in a politician.

With the Koran as their bible, who would ever vote for Muslim?
With the Old Testament as their bible, who would ever vote for a Jew?
With the New Testament for their bible, who would ever vote for a Christian?
With the Constitution for their bible, who would ever vote for an American?
Americans (by consent) committed genocide against Native Americans, practiced slavery, engage in unjust wars, unfair trade practices, neglect children and the poor, favor big business over the welfare of citizens, do not endorse a living wage, exploit the environment, exploit the poor, and the list goes on. I agree completely that this country was not formed on Christian principles and is not a Christian nation, but if this is secular humanism, maybe we should give Christianity a try. Afterall, Christ treated slaves and women as equals, fed the poor, cured the sick,and preached against violence. He has my vote.

Pablo wrote: "The foundation of the United States government is based on a Judeo Christian worldview. That does not mean that all the founders were Christians or Jews but that they believed that there was a God."

So... I take it that you did not dare to expose yourself to the links that I provided. It is too bad that you have been under the influence of liars for so long. Whar's that you say? They wouldn't lie to you?

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." ~ Martin Luther, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1.

There's the thing, Pablo... 'knowledge' is the ENEMY of christianity... because KNOWLEDGE exposes the foundation of lies and deceit upon which christianity is built, and operates. Your religious puppet-masters have a keen business interest in the necessity of keeping the 'flock' ignorant... because theu don't want to lose customers... customers who are buying the HOP of salvation, and the ILLUSION of eternal life.

Because knowledge is the enemy of christianity, it is their mission to subvert, obfuscate, misinform... LIE in order to keep you away from the main sources of knowledge... history and science. So, they feed YOU pseudo-history and pseudo-science.

TIP: Do not go to religious sources for historical information... they LIE.

TIP: Do not go to religious sources for scientific information... they LIE.

TIP: Do not go to scientific sources for information on religion... they are far too busy for such nonsense... and they probably wouldn't care, anyway.

TIP: DO go to ACTUAL scholarly, secular historical sources for information on the history of your religion... they have NO REASON to lie. Your 'trusted' religious puppet-masters, on the other hand, have EVERY reason to lie.

Pablo wrote: "However, a very high percentage were Christians. There idea of separation of church and state did not mean what anti-Christian forces have made it into today. It only meant that one denomination would not be determined by the state. It was not intended to separate God from government."

It damn well WAS meant to seperate god from government... because god in government was responsible for 1,700 years of religious inspired warfare... killing for Christ. The world was sick of it. The inspiration for the US government came from the SECULAR HUMANIST ideals that arose during the 'Enlightenment' and the 'Age of Reason'. You need to re-read my previous post, and check out those links.

Pablo wrote: "That fact is seen in all the references to God in the writings of most of the founders, in the various institutions around the country, all over our national monuments, and even on our money. If the founders believed what the current stewards of our nation believe none of these references to God would be seen in all these places."

Yep... there sure were references to god in the writings of our founders...
Thomas Jefferson: "I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." ~ Six Historic Americans by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

Jefferson again: "Christianity... (has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

More Jefferson: "The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves... these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."

John Adams: "Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

Also Adams: "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states: "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

Here's Thomas Paine:

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance." And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

Finally let's hear from James Madison:

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Among those who confuse Christianity with the founding of America, the rise of conservative Baptists is one of the more interesting developments. The Baptists believed God's authority came from the people, not the priesthood, and they had been persecuted for this belief. It was they -- the Baptists -- who were instrumental in securing the separation of church and state. They knew you can not have a "one-way wall" that lets religion into government but that does not let it out. They knew no religion is capable of handling political power without becoming corrupted by it. And, perhaps, they knew it was Christ himself who first proposed the separation of church and state: "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's."

In the last five years the Baptists have been taken over by a fundamentalist faction that insists authority comes from the Bible and that the individual must accept the interpretation of the Bible from a higher authority. These usurpers of the Baptist faith are those who insist they should meddle in the affairs of the government and it is for they who insist the government should meddle in the beliefs of individuals.

The price of Liberty is constant vigilance, folks. Religious fundamentalism and zealous patriotism have always been the forces which require the greatest attention.

James Madison, again:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Govt (sic) will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Thomas Paine:

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."

"The story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of an apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision, and credulity believe. Stories of this kind had been told of the assassination of Julius Caesar..."

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

Benjamin Franklin:

"The nearest I can make it out, 'Love your Enemies' means, 'Hate your Friends'."

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

The Founding Fathers who were the ARCHITECTS of the Constitution (the guys who WROTE it) were NOT Christians... they were Deists... today, they would be atheists. The words 'god' or 'Jesus' appear NOWHERE in the Constitution.

The motto "In God We Trust" had NOTHING to do with the founding of our country. It first appeared on a 2¢ coin in 1864... during the Civil War... nearly 100 years AFTER the founding of the country. It seems that both the North and the South claimed to have god on their side... the North thought it was a good idea to seal the deal by placing that motto on a coin.

In 1956, during the height of the cold war, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution to replace the existing motto (E Pluribus Unum) with "In God we Trust." The new motto was first used on paper money in 1957, when it was added to the one-dollar silver certificate. By 1966, "In God we Trust" was added to all paper money, from $1 to $100 denominations.

It should be starting to occur to you by now that your knowledge of history is faulty. There is a reason for that... the religious puppet-masters that TEACH you history LIE to you... they teach you a FALSE history... just like they LIE about science...they even LIE about the bible and the history of Christianity. If you know anything about the ACTUAL history of christianity, you would be shocked and appalled. For example, check THIS out: www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_060.htm

Pablo wrote: "You may not like that truth but you cannot change that truth. The foundation of the Christian world view and faith in God is the reason for the explosive blessings that this nation experienced in the past."

Yep... slavery... the oppression of women... the christian knights of the KKK... lynchings... explosive blessings, all right.

Pablo wrote: "But sadly our nation is now post-Christian. Increasingly people do not want God and Christianity is under attack. This is due largely to the embracing of the religion of evolution, humanism, and the belief in the autonomy of self."

What is under attack is the Constitution of the USA... by christian fundamentalists and dominionists... and they are enlisting so-called MODERATE christians to their cause by LYING to them.

Dang... you people who have no capacity for critical thinking are SO damned easy to manipulate.

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people."

James Madison, "father of the Constitution"

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

-John Adams, U.S. President, Founding Father of the United States

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Thomas Paine