Taliban vs. Pakistan

Pakistan has become the biggest mess for the world. And the United States is still giving billions in aid with no strings attached. Pakistani military is playing the Taliban card to get more money. They are least interested in eliminating their 'strategic' partners against India.
http://proamericanmuslims.wordpress.com/

There are more Muslims than Christians in that area and those killed are those who side with and help foreign countries

There are more Muslims than Christians in that area and those killed are those who side with and help foreign countries

My most recent thoughts on the Middle East, which should shed some light on what I think of the current On Faith question, are the following.

daniel12 :
U.S. and Israel on a collision course on the problem of Iran and Palestine? What would be the consequences of a breach between the U.S. and Israel?

I do believe that for all their talk of supporting each other that the U.S. and Israel cannot help but be in conflict with each other over Iran and Palestine. For Israel Iran and Palestine are far more of an existential problem than they are for the U.S. Sure the U.S. needs Middle Eastern oil, has interests in the Middle East, but Israel has to live there. We can clearly see that the U.S. is proceeding with the Iranian and Palestinian problem in a less severe way than Israel is--and precisely for proceeding in a less severe manner than Israel a divide is opened up between Israel and the U.S.

At bottom the U.S. does not feel as threatened as Israel, therefore concerns about oil take precedence over Israel. Israel is far more concerned about its existence than oil. The U.S. is far more concerned about oil than its existence with respect to the Middle East for the simple reason that the U.S. is not as threatened as Israel. But in the final analysis both the U.S. and Israel should be worried about the Middle East. The Islamic world is radically at odds with all the U.S. and Israel stand for. I know it is not fashionable to speak of a clash of civilizations today--not least because Obama is supposed to be able to talk his way out of anything--but I believe a clash of civilizations is inevitable.

What I mean can be explained with taking just one issue of difference between the U.S./Israel and the Islamic world. Right now I am reading Machiavelli and have been repeatedly struck with a process--a historical process--Machiavelli describes. He describes how so much of human history is a history of conspirators against ruling powers they are unsatisfied with and these ruling powers implementing counter conspiracy powers against the conspirators. Therefore slowly but surely, for all revolution and conspiracy against powers, what accrues steadily is counter conspiracy powers to the point that we have for example today in an advanced democracy only certain channels by which political power is reached, and no one seriously entertains a conspiracy against ruling powers. In other words powers of conspiracy have been crushed before they can even begin.--But then a curious phenomenon takes place: People have a vague feeling because they cannot conspire that they are being conspired against by ruling powers--especially in times of economic and political crisis.

Now what this has to do with the Middle East is pretty obvious. The Middle East is largely entrenched in this historical process that Machiavelli describes. To be clearer, in the Middle East it is routine to attempt to conspire against ruling powers, and it is of course routine for powers to implement counter conspiracy measures the best they can. This makes the Islamic world radically at odds with the U.S. and Israel. Precisely because in the U.S. and Israel counter conspiracy measures have won out and people have pretty much accepted the channels that have opened up by these measures and by which one can gain political power, the U.S. and Israel politically seem monstrous, radically constrictive to the Middle Eastern mind. In fact Middle Easterners cannot help but feel a conspiracy is afoot against them. In general they feel a conspiracy is afoot against them from their own rulers, and they constantly entertain conspiracy theories and attempt to conspire, therefore powers that have solidified in being counter conspiracy like the U.S. and Israel cannot help but be seen as malignant.

The typical Muslim is a person who entertains arriving at political power by a giant leap, simply crushing all rivals. He conspires and constantly feels conspired against. And no matter how benign the U.S. and Israel seem or even are, they cannot help but be seen as massively constrictive for the simple reason, and to say it again, that after centuries counter conspiracy powers have won out. In the U.S. and Israel the political process is no longer typified in conspiracy versus counter conspiracy terms. In general the more advanced powers have emerged from this historical process and are now in the midst of a new historical process, an attempt to be firmly counter conspiratorial without falling into totalitarian states whether of the left or right. But the Middle East is largely stuck in the prior historical process--one of conspiracy versus counter conspiracy. This explains to a large degree the puzzling phenomenon of Islamic people being strangely removed from the facts of what the average person would call general history and being inordinately engrossed in conspiracy theories.

So the U.S. really at bottom should not allow oil concerns to take precedence over Israel. It is an illusion to think that pulling away from Israel and trying to talk to and ally oneself with Middle Eastern powers will work to the benefit of the Islamic world and the West. The West simply fails to grasp the difference in mindsets between the Islamic world and the West. In short it would be tragic for the U.S. and Israel to break over the problems of Iran and Palestine. The U.S. and Israel must stand fast with each other or potentially go down together. And the world under Muslim influence descend back to earlier historical processes of conspiracy versus counter conspiracy....

Hmmm, apparently reminding everyone of Henry VIII's six wives is still very upsetting to various Episcopalians.

Arminius2,

"I was really into Berlinerblau's post, and tried to find it..."

You can still find it here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/05/cyber_anti-semitism.html

Good luck

Hi, Wiccan,

I was really into Berlinerblau's post, and tried to find it in the panel, but it was not there. Yeah, I see corporate sabotage at work here.

Arminius, most plausible explanation I can come up with is that the web-editor got his pink slip today, and he knows it will be Monday before some responsible adult will see what he did and correct it. Have you tried going to "Panel" at the top (next to the RSS feed) and going to Jacoby's posts? Going to try it right now. BRB.

Arminius, Arminius, Arminius,

Religion in some respects is regorging the facts, myths and embellishments of those who came before us. On Faith is simply following that tradition.

A typical religious regorgement trail:

Hittites and Babylonians/Code of Hammurabi to the Jews/OT to Jesus-PMMLJ/NT to the "Protestors"/Martin Luther's 95 Theses to Henry VIII and his six wives/English Reformation to Joe Smith and his "horn blowing" Moroni/Golden Tablets to the very strange "great Babs"/Divine Essence.

What the Cliffs Notes version of the crisis in Pakistan is NOT saying is that it is not an "Islam vs secularism" battle going on. It is a tribal battle wrapped in the cloak of Islam. Pakistan is made up of several different tribes - the Pashtuns, Sindhi, Punjabi, Baluchi, etc. The Taliban is made up of Pashtuns, who live in the north-west of Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan, and are generally considered to be the most violent, backward, and religiously fundamentalist of all of the tribes in the area. They are about 15% of the population, but they cause a lot of the internal problems.

IN RELY TO (IRT)
JOHN SHELBY SPONG
MUSLIM RADICALISM & PAKISTAN
APRIL 27, 2009; 8:02 PM ET

IRT:
“How would you respond to radical Muslim clerics who are calling for expansion of Islamic law across the entire federal republic of Pakistan. Should any nation be governed by religious rules or authorities?”

ANS:
God created man with an intellect and a free will. The food of the intellect is Truth. The purpose of the will is to act for the Good informed by the intellect. The intellect is to discern Truth, the will is to choose freely to act in accord with the intellect when the intellect presents what it perceives to be a good. God wanted man to choose to love Him freely, otherwise God would have created a robot in the place of man to do His will. Hence, it would be immoral to force a religion on anyone, because it would be against the will of God.

Man has a natural and inalienable right, because of his free will imprinted in human nature, to choose to love God, who is Truth, and All Good. Man also may choose evil, thinking it was a good, in light of man’s free will. However, man has no choice as to the consequences of his choice that ensue.

IRT:
“This is no different from right wing Christian groups seeking to impose their moral values and religious convictions on the United States.”

ANS:
To the contrary, you make one major mistake. The Natural Moral Law (NML) is not their moral values or your moral values. The NML is God’s moral values.

Man can choose any religion he wishes, but he cannot choose what moral laws he wishes to recognize and abide by. The NML is universal, objective, and is based on the human nature of man. It is the natural law that governs all human behavior, irrespective of man’s opinions, proclivities, or preferences. A fish cannot choose to swim in sand no more than a man can choose to deny his nature by ignoring the NML.

Man is, by nature, a social being. God gives to man the NML, a gift of order, that man may harmonize with the world, its Natural Law, and the society in which man lives. Because man is endowed with a free will, he can choose to ignore the NML, as many have chosen to do.

Unfortunately, though most think they are, moral laws are not subjective; if morality were subjective, than morality would be meaningless.

The NML is a rule and the proper standards for proper human behavior of all who have a human nature; consequently, these rules are objective and universal, viz. for all men, and without exception.

Though man can choose his religion, man cannot choose what morals he wishes to believe. Moreover, man cannot choose the consequences of his ill-begotten choices; the consequences are the domain of God and His Natural Law and not man’s choice.

We can see these consequences of one not adhering to the NML. They are before us; they are stark and foreboding. They are personified in Hitler’s Germany, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, the provinces of Edi Amine, the world of bin Laden, and Kim Yong-nam’s (Kim Yong il) North Korea.

These consequences are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,--Famine, Pestilence, War, and Death. They are not fantasies; they are real. Choose to ignore the NML and choose to commit social suicide.

IRT:
“Perhaps when we see it coming from a non-Christian source we will recognize it for the imperialism that it represents.”

ANS:
You may call it imperialism; maybe that’s one way of looking at it. Christians prefer to call it the providence of God’s love for man. The NML is a gift from God that man may live in ordered harmony and peace.

IRT:
“The fatal flaw in all religious systems is that they claim to represent ultimate truth which appears to give them the right to impose that truth on all people.”

ANS:
There are no flaws in God; He is perfect. Nor can there be flaws in His Church and in its beliefs and doctrines because the author of the true Church is God. Is not God omniscient, and omnipotent, all Loving, and all Just and Merciful?

It would be quite facetious and somewhat arrogant to imply God is an imperious despot. God is no more a despot than a father and mother is a despot to their child. The errors of the non-believer are they think of God as a man and therefore a fallible man.

The chasm between God and man is infinite. Man is finite, God is infinite. God is the Father, omniscient; man is finite; he is the child; God is man's Father. The Father loves the child and protects him. The child cannot tell the Father what is right for him no more than a child can tell his parents what is right; the Father knows what the child cannot even see or imagine.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GABY1 :
“WHO’S TRUTH”
[Aquinas determines the attributes of God on the link below. They are all rational and logical and Scripture enlightens our reason and vice versa because truth does not contradict truth.]

IRT:
Really??? Whose truth???? I can tell you it's true that Rocky Mountain oysters taste great! You can tell me they are degusting! Now whose truth do you want to believe?

ANS:
Whose truth, there is no whose truth. Truth is Truth. Truth is that which is; that which exist; viz. reality. Therefore, God is Truth, All Reality, Further, Truth cannot contradict truth. Truth is not dependent on who believes it. The existence of truth does not depend on someone believing it.

As to Aquinas and Aristotle, their truth is based on reason. That which contradicts reason is not truth. Now if you can show the unreasonableness of Aquinas, then show it. What is it you find unreasonable or a contradiction of reason?

If you cannot reason, then you cannot make judgments. Of course, the only way we can speak or make judgments is by using our reason. Unreasonable judgments are irrational. Therefore, they are untrue.

For example, we postulate that 2+2= 4. If we postulate 2+2= 6 than we are in error. 2+2 = 4 whether we believe it or not. Even if the whole world didn’t believe it. However, if you’re rational, you would believe it.

IRT:
“Scripture wasn't written by any god, but by men. It is their truth, not the truth of any god.”

ANS:
God did not write the Scriptures, man did write them under the inspirations of the Creator. Through all the centuries, the Old Testament was written, most of its writings can be historically verified. The great flood, the parting of the sea, etc. Nothing in the Scripture in all its vastness contradictory. Why? Because God is, Truth and Truth cannot contradict Truth.

In the OT, the life of Jesus is written some 300 years before His birth. Can you explain how that could occur without Divine Inspiration?

IRT:
Rational and logical is a human perception, it has nothing to do with truth.

ANS:
Without reason you could not speak. You could not make a judgment. Do you think? If reason and logic have nothing to do with Truth, a.k.a. Reality, than you would know nothing. Granted, there exists many schools of thought that we know nothing of reality; that was the theory of Kant, and the pessimistic philosophers of Germany. The consequences of their philosophy, pushed to their conclusion, are suicide, physically and spiritually.

"The Catholic Church" says the Vatican Council, III, and iv, “has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge. Namely, these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object. In one, we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation."

Now, intellectual knowledge may be defined in a general way as the union between the intellect and an intelligible object. But a truth is intelligible to us only in so far as it is evident to us, and evidence is of different kinds; hence, according to the varying character of the evidence, we shall have varying kinds of knowledge.

Thus a truth may be self-evident -- e.g. the whole is greater than its part -- in which case we are said to have intuitive knowledge of it.

Or, the truth may not be self-evident, but deducible from premises in which it is contained. Such knowledge is termed reasoned knowledge.

Or, again, a truth may be neither self-evident nor deducible from premises in which it is contained. Yet the intellect may be obliged to assent to it because It would else have to reject some other universally accepted truth.

Lastly, the intellect may be induced to assent to a truth for none of the foregoing reasons, but solely because, though not evident in itself, this truth rests on grave authority.

For example, we accept the statement that the sun is 90,000,000 miles distant from the earth because competent, veracious authorities vouch for the fact. This last kind of knowledge is termed faith, and is clearly necessary in daily life.

If the authority upon which we base our assent is human and therefore fallible, we have human and fallible faith. If the authority is Divine, we have Divine and infallible faith. If to this be added the medium by which the Divine authority for certain statements is put before us, viz. the Catholic Church, we have Divine-Catholic Faith.

In the Old Testament considered not as an inspired book, but merely as a book having historical value, we find detailed the marvelous dealings of God with a particular nation to whom He repeatedly reveals Himself; we read of miracles wrought in their favor and as proofs of the truth of the revelation He makes.

We find the most sublime teaching and the repeated announcement of God's desire to save the world from sin and its consequences. And, more than all, we find throughout the pages of this book a series of hints, now obscure, now clear, of some wondrous person who is to come as the world's savior.

We find it asserted at one time that he is man, at others that he is God Himself. When we turn to the New Testament we find that it records the birth, life, and death of One Who, while clearly man, also claimed to be God, and Who proved the truth of His claim by His whole life—miracles, teachings, and death, and finally by His triumphant resurrection.

We find, moreover, that He founded a Church which should, so He said, continue to the end of time, which should serve as the repository of His teaching, and should be the means of applying to all men the fruits of the redemption He had wrought.

When we come to the subsequent history of this Church, we find it speedily spreading everywhere, and this in spite of its humble origin, its unworldly teaching, and the cruel persecution, which it meets at the hands of the rulers of this world.

And as the centuries pass, we find this Church battling against heresies schisms, and the sins of her own people-nay, of her own rulers. Yet continuing, we see ever the same, promulgating ever the same doctrine, and putting before men the same mysteries of the life, death, and resurrection of the world's Savior.

Moreover, it was He Who had, so She taught, gone before to prepare a home for those who while on earth should have believed in Him and fought the good fight.

But, if the history of the Church, since New-Testament times thus wonderfully confirms, the New Testament itself, and if the New Testament so marvelously completes the Old Testament, these books must really contain what they claim to contain. Viz. they contain Divine revelation.

And more than all, that Person’s life and death were so minutely foretold in the Old Testament, and Whose story, as told in the New Testament, so perfectly corresponds with its prophetic delineation in the Old Testament. Therefore, it must be what He claimed to be, viz. the Son of God.

His work, therefore, must be Divine. The Church that He founded must also be Divine. Therefore, since the Church is the repository and guardian of His teachings, it must be Devine.

Indeed, we can truly say that for every truth of Christianity, in which we believe Christ Himself is our testimony, we believe in Him because the Divinity He claimed rests upon the concurrent testimony. [That testimony is] of His miracles, His prophecies His personal character, the nature of His doctrine. [More so, we believe because of] the marvelous propagation of His teachings. [Thus, it has came about, even] in spite of its running counter to flesh and blood, the united testimony of thousands of martyrs. [And there is] the stories of countless saints who for His sake have led heroic lives.

The history of the Church herself, since the Crucifixion, and, perhaps more remarkable than any, the history of the papacy from St. Peter to Pius X. show Her validity.

Among CCNL's top-ten reasons for becoming Bahai is the following:

9: No booze! No, you might be having fun and you wouldn't
want that.

Although I know nothing of the religion, if this claim is true, it, alone, should be sufficient to commend the religion to him, given the extent of his alcoholism and deterioration due to his mixing alcohol with anti-psychotic drugs.

Islam, too, prohibits drinking; I mention Islam as an option in this regard, just in case ccnl decides that, for whatever reasons, he does not wish to become Bahai.

Let us all hope and/or pray for ccnl's recover. It is never too late.

No women need to apply for any government position in any Baha'ist theocracy.

To wit:

http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/exclusion.html

No women need to apply for any government position in any Baha'ist theocracy.

To wit:

Farnaz,

It is late in my part of the world and I am hurting.

I will resond tomorrow!

Farnaz1Mansouri1,
yes - the enlightenment is when freedom of religion began. the "islamic world" has not had an enlightenment.

well, frankly, as a disinterested observer, i have to say the NT is the least offensive of judeochrislamic scripture. the moral advance of the NT is that while jesus promised unbelievers a horrible eternal punishment in hell, he did not advocate believers kill unbelievers right there on the spot. he promised he would take care of all that on judgement day.

hilariously, according to the NT, jesus promised his disciples that he'd be back for them on a cloud IN THEIR LIFETIMES. the fact that that did not happen is why we have developed all these crazy kinds of end-time theories - because jesus was plainly wrong about the end times...

Walter,

One could have asked as late as the twentieth century, "Are there any verses advocating religious tolerance in the NT?"

walter-in-fallschurch,

Yes, you are right. My problem is that I don't know the Quoran in English.

But the problem, I think, is not the Quoran, as I tried to say in my post to you. The West only achieved tolerance AFTER it threw off the yoke of religious governance.

Farnaz

Gaby,

In addition to receiving inquiries as to the "difference between World War I and World War II," I have been informed that the Civil War took place in the 1960s, also the decade when women won the right to vote.

The odd thing is that regardless of what one may think, these comments were not made by unintelligent people. From what I understand, this ignorance of European and American history has a long history in and of itself, taking root in the early sixties.

Interesting. Now the history curriculum has broadened, extending well beyond Europe.

There is a big difference between what is taught and what is learned, it seems, maybe, in part, due to the ahistoricism of the news media, dearth of news in the news, etc.

Farnaz1Mansouri1,
congratulations on your google success...of course there are tolerant verses in the koran. contention is that they all come early in the koran and are superseded (at least in the minds of many muslims) by later koranic verses.

To all Baha'ists who have the day off to celebrate the ninth day of Ridvan, have you seen this person at any of you celebrations??

Farnaz aka Farnaz2 aka Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1 aka ivri5678 aka Billy8 aka nadinebatra aka stadtbear aka Spark1 aka Masumian MA? aka
Ma'sumian? aka Sheikhazdeh-Zavareh? aka Shark2 aka Spidermean3 aka Farnazmansouri1.

Many non-Baha'ists are concerned that said person is planning a peaceful coup in the city of Austin, Texas in order to convert it to a theocracy.

Gaby,

You may not know the reference. The former prime minister of France made this remark very publicly regarding an attack on a French Jew, implying that French and Jewish were two separate categories. It made headlines.

It made headlines here and abroad. The Baltic states have had horrific "minorities" problems, as has Russia, much worse since the the fall of Communism, worse in many respects, although throughout the "secular" Communist era, Russian Jews, had the word "Jew" stamped on their passports. Russian and Jewish were considered separate categories.

Russians, when you tell them Russia is the West, will often look at you with amusement. Not all, but many.

The issues are not geographic, but cultural, political, etc.

Speak to Pakistanis and Indians in England, Algierians in France, etc. The West.

Be all this as it may, the West is not the Middle East. The West may not be as tolerant as it could be, but tolerance, in a big way, only began here when we threw off the yoke of religious governance.

And, yes, of course, it had and has lapses. Religion is a private matter, IMHO. Is not synonymous with "spirituality." Should be absolutely separate from state, should not have nonprofit status, should not be discussed in political campaigns. Faith-based funding?

Much of what occurred during this last presidential campaign was truly reactionary. On this blog, folks posted again and again that all we had to do was look across the globe to see what religionism can bring. I mean religionism, to which most of the panelists on this blog are vehemently opposed.

Regarding the campaign, being the most progressive country, in most ways, on the face of the earth, has its disadvantages. Many Americans don't remember what happened last week, forget the fall. Again and again I'm asked the difference between World War I and World War II.

We need to watch that. Otherwise, we lose sight of trends, ignore dangers, etc.

Farnaz,

An attack is an attack, whether it is against a Jew, a Frenchman, an Italian, a Korean, a Japanese, a Somali, a Kenyan, an Australian, etc.

Now if you ask whether the attack is justified, that is a completely different arena.

As far as what is west and what is east.

Everything west of the Urals is west, and everything east of the Urals is east. Just because the Soviet Union had a vast empire at some point doesn't negate what is west and what is east in geographic terms.

walter-in-fallschurch:

"You know, I did a one-minute google search to see if there were answers to your question, and there are Quoranic passages on tolerance."

What struck me is this, though. It was not until the West broke away from religious law that it became "tolerant," though you will admit that the degree of tolerance throughout the West varies, and nowhere it it what it should be.

So, maybe there is another question?

------------------------------------
Then, we must ask whether the Baltic nations are the West, whether Russia is the West....

Whether "an attack on a Jew is like an attack on a Frenchman," etc. I'm assuming you know the notorious reference.

Btw., Walter, I couldn't sign in as Farnaz2 or Farnaz1Mansour1, but am suddenly signed in, so don't know which name will post.

"Aquinas determines the attributes of God on the link below. They are all rational and logical and Scripture enlightens our reason and vice versa because truth does not contradict truth."

Really??? Whose truth???? I can tell you it's true that Rocky Mountain oysters taste great! You can tell me they are digusting! Now whose truth do you want to believe?

Scripture wasn't written by any god, but by men. It is their truth, not the truth of any god.

Rational and logical is a human perception, it has nothing to do with truth.

Abhab writes:

"No religion should rule over a nation, because it would discriminate against the other religious minorities."

I strongly agree. Religions emerged within cultures at specific historic moments and are, inherently, ideological, even as they transform to meet changing conditions.

Up until the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) when religious minorities were given extremely limited freedom, the religion of the state was the religion of the sovereign. The Roman Catholic Church frequently ran into disputes with royalty over governance, the Church for a lengthy period owning property throughout Europe. The Treaty of Westphalia marked the end of the long declining Holy Roman Empire.

The US Constitution represented an event unique in human history, making the people "sovereign." It was reasoned that with a multitude of religions practiced in the US, a national religion would result in competition among religious lines, candidates put forward on the basis of "faith."

The result would be the real or imagined infringement of the rights of those not adhering to the religion of the elected official.

A good overview of the history can be found in Noah Feldman, "America's Church State Problem and What We Should Do about It."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER :
PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC:

IRT:
“None of these things are conceived of as possible with one exception, god. We take all things we don’t understand about god and are quite comfortable saying that this quality of god is beyond our ability to fathom. Yet Aquinas reduced god’s very existence into a conclusion that in spite of all his supernatural, mysterious and unseen qualities, he MUST be able to be deduced logically in OUR minds.”

ANS:
Wrong, there is no "must"; God’s presence can be perceived through reason, our nature and the moral laws inscribed on our consciences.

We can only know God on earth by what He isn’t because our minds are finite, and God is infinite. We see His effects and reason that He is not His finite effect but something greater. We know who God is by Divine Revelation, His intervention in our needs, through the miracles that He reveals to us. Namely, God isn’t limited by the effects we see; His effects reveal to us His existence.

From knowing what He is not, we can reason that God does not exist in time, is unchangeable, and infinite, but we cannot understand existence out of time, or the infinite except in terms of the finite things we experience.

We can reason there must be a God, but full understanding of Him is impossible. One cannot fill a quart bottle with a gallon of water. We can never fully conceive God or we would be God. We can only know God in proportion to our finite capacity to receive Him. God’s promise for eternal happiness is to rest in Him in perfection. We can only do that in Paradise.

Aquinas determines the attributes of God on the link below. They are all rational and logical and Scripture enlightens our reason and vice versa because truth does not contradict truth.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

"Second please show me where science ‘proves’ that a fertilized egg is human."

The way I see it that a fertilized human egg is about as human as the fertilized chicken egg you eat for breakfast.

Now if you were to crack open that egg you want to fry for breakfast, and a feathery little chick came out, then it is a ckicken, prior to that it's an egg with a bloody little spot attached.

I am sure we all have found those pesky fertilized eggs in our gocery basket. Yet, I have never found one that contained a chick.

Tomorrow, 29 April, 2009 is the ninth day of Ridvan. All Baha'ists have the day off.

Recommended reading:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WWN-4PPNM41-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=981a84f3e0d2d7d7a96abd1c0cbb8acb

No religion should rule over a nation, because it would discriminate against the other religious minorities. It is even more so in the case of Islam because it is firstly a political ideology disguised as a cult that is openly hostile to all other religions and all other systems of governance. It is a supremacist ideology that serves the interests of mainly the Arab Muslim males who are free (not slaves or descended from slaves) and who could trace their lineage to Qureish tribe in Arabia. It is no secret that almost all the ruling families of the Arab countries impose their legitimacy by claiming to be descendents of the Arabian prophet.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2:
“Abortionist don’t believe the “conceived” is a human, thought it is proven by both science and reason”

First, you are misusing the word ‘reason’.
Second please show me where science ‘proves’ that a fertilized egg is human. We’ve covered this before. When science says that a fertilized egg is ‘human’ they mean they can tell through DNA tests that it is not a potential zebra or a snake. They do not ever imply that the fertilized egg is human in the sense that it has consciousness or a soul. If you point at an acorn and call it an oak tree you are both right and wrong. It may become an oak tree, it certainly not become a fish, but it is not at this point a tree in any physical sense or definition other than that is what it may become.

“Atheist don’t believe in God though He is patently manifested in reason”

No he is not. You are using that word ‘reason’ incorrectly again.

‘god exists’ is only the result of logic if one presupposes he exists.

“His Creation, Scripture, and Divine Revelation, or even when God rises from the dead.”

The scripture can be discounted as proof if one compares the scriptures to the thousands of other texts about other ‘gods’. My copy of ‘Gone with the Wind’ does not prove the existence of Ashley Wilkes, one of its characters.

Divine revelation has no meaning to an atheist, who does not believe in divine revelations. The only difference between divine revelation and regular revelation is the claims of the one with the revelation.

To rise from the dead is illogical, beyond reason. There is nothing other than stories that say it ever happened. And of course those stories are not at all unique to judeo-christianity.

Should any nation be governed by religious rules or authorities?

That is a big NO. The only governance should be by the law of Nature - love thy friend as thyself. “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is the general law of nature, since nature is a single organism. The law of considering others before yourself. The law of mutual guarantee that exits in Nature and mankind which is one body (which we are all parts of) has yet to observe the law in the connections between us. We currently use our interconnection and interdependence for our own selfish benefit and not for the benefit of the whole of man. Our good future depends on us changing our egoistic connections to those of altruism. And this is above any religion, this concerns us all.

However, humanity will come to these conditions gradually and willingly, not by force of a religious sect and its ideals. Still we must become aware that Nature/the Creator is now pushing us to be in adhered to its law, which is why we see the outbreak and results of our egoistic connections between one another expressed in the ongoing general global crisis in the world in all aspects of our lives (economy, disease, family breakdown, terrorism, drugs, ecology, education and so on). Religious force, rules and authorities will in no way improve any countries or the worlds future. Only the power of unity above our differences.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2
ANS:
If there is only one God, then Aquinas doesn’t have to prove what God it is.
But there isn’t. God himself wrote on the stone tablet; “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”

It appears that even your god recognized the existence of other gods.

“Many don’t believe the truth even though they must contradict reason”

God is not proven by reason. Aquinas’ ‘logic’ proves nothing. Aquinas started his logical exercise with the presupposition that god exists and formulates a stream of thought that would confirm that theory. He did not ‘prove’ anything in the sense you are using that word.

“because there cannot be an infinite string of caused beings”
That is theory only. It is also theory without evidence. What if there CAN be an infinite string of caused beings, and we just cannot, perceive it?

Scientists theorize that there is an unknown force similar to gravity and magnetism, but not either that hold subatomic particles together. Current science cannot ‘prove’ the existence of this force to be one thing or another. Though it appears likely that such a force exists, the explanations of it are currently all theory because we do not understand all of nature. This does not ‘prove’ that god must exist, it merely proves that we don’t understand how everything works yet. Yet Aquinas ‘proves’ that because he eliminates certain things as reasonable due to his inability to explain things he does not understand, that god must exist? Then you further walk down that uncertain thread to claim that it MUST be the god of Abraham.

“All things that exist are caused”
Once again, we don’t know this for sure. This is theory, not evidence.
You postulate the god is eternal, infinite. You deny that this thing ‘god’ required a mover to cause it. That is the opposite of what Aquinas stated, that all things require a cause. If you dismiss this because ‘God is the exception’ then you are allowing exceptions to universal laws, saying that not every ‘thing’ had to be caused. If there can be exceptions, and if logically you prove there MUST be exceptions, that only means there are exceptions and everything that is outside these laws is god. Everything. It is just as logically reasonable to postulate that the entire universe is the exception, that in one form or another it already existed, therefore the universe itself is the ‘prime mover’. There is nothing in Aquinas’ argument that says the prime mover has intent, or plan or cosmic purpose, only that an exception to the very laws he uses as proof must have always existed.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER :
PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC:

IRT:
“First, The five proofs of god, even if they were bulletproof logic, which they are not, does nothing to tell us WHICH god is THE god.

Aquinas never logically proves that it was the god of Abraham that was the first mover. You may sir, be worshipping the wrong god. I know yours SAYS he is the creator, but what god does not? The Greeks may have been right, or maybe the Egyptians… or perhaps the Norse.”

ANS:
If there is only one God, then Aquinas doesn’t have to prove what God it is.

Aristotle:
http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/PhilRel/Aristotle.htm

“Aristotle determines that there is only one unmoved mover, not only because many unmoved movers are unnecessary, but because only one mover could produce a continuous motion, in the sense of being an interconnected system of causes and effects.”

Moreover, since it is continuous, motion is one; one effect requires a single cause, so that the unmoved mover must also be one. He concludes that an unmoved mover causing eternal motion must likewise be eternal (Physics 260a 1-2). “

First, we should define what God is. God is (1) that which is complete and perfect; (2) that which exists by its own nature and is consequently independent of everything else; (3) that which is related to no other being; (4) the sum of all being, actual and potential. Aquinas proves that there be one God.

In Aquinas’ shorter version of his Summa Theologica, Aquinas shows multiple Gods are a contradiction of logic. He shows that God is simple, viz. his essence is his existence, then that God is not a genus.

A genus is defined like this. What a thing is, but not that it is, comes from its genus; the “thing” is established in its “specific differences.” But God is very existence itself. Therefore, there can be no differences in God. Hence, all that exists shares in the existence of God, whose nature is simple, viz. no potentiality. Consequently, God lacks nothing. Because He is all existence.

For example, the word “tree” is a genus; it is an abstracted form from actually existing “trees.” The “specific differences,” are the individual trees that are also represented by a genus as Oak, Maple, Pine, etc. This is the way we know things and make judgments. We abstract forms from that which exist and identify them by genuses. The genus based on reality only exist in the mind as an abstracted form from reality of a tree and categorizes all trees as “tree” and further as specific differences. The genus is that which is common to all trees.

If there were different Gods, how would they be different if there are no differences in God, viz. they would all be the same. Moreover, God is eternal, no beginning or end, and therefore, no parts. Hence, his existence is His essence.

Essence is that which defines a substance. Example: Your essence is the genus man, your specific difference is your individuality. Before you were born, you were a potential essence; when given existence by God, who created you, you became an actual human. All created beings have an essence and an existence; in God, they are the same. Differences are denoted by individuality.

IRT:
As to the validity of Aquinas’ logic, I don’t buy it, and neither do others, many of them much, much smarter than me.

ANS:
Many don’t believe the truth even though they must contradict reason. Abortionist don’t believe the “conceived” is a human, thought it is proven by both science and reason. Atheist don’t believe in God though He is patently manifested in reason, His Creation, Scripture, and Divine Revelation, or even when God rises from the dead.

IRT:
“For example: “therefore we must stop at some first mover which is moved by nothing else”
Can be translated into: “Logically speaking there HAS to be an unmoving first mover for my logic to be logical. “

In other words, Aquinas surmises that God must be able to be proved logically, within the ability of a man’s mind to discern that logic. That is simply inconsistent with the supernaturalness of god. Your god is infinite, omniscient, omnipotent. NONE of these concepts are logical based on our awareness of the universe.”

ANS:
God’s existence depend on nothing. Aquinas, as Aristotle, prove from reason there must be something that is uncaused because there cannot be an infinite string of caused beings. They do not say you must believe in God for Him to exist, they only say God exists logically and therefore really.

The proof of God from Motion: Non-existence cannot cause existence. Things exist. All things that exist are caused, or not caused. If caused, they need a mover to cause them; if not caused, then they eternally exist with no beginning or end. Since There cannot be an infinite string of dependent cause, there must be a being not caused. This we call God.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2:

Oh, I’m starting to see a pattern here.. you’re anti abortion rights, right?

That’s fine. Seriously it’s fine. I don’t like abortions either; I certainly wish there were none being performed. The only difference between you and me is really one of method, not goal. You wish to make criminals out of doctors and pregnant women, I do not. I would rather see more responsible birth control and more mature and intelligent decisions by people prior to their engaging in sexual activity. I would like to see us mature as a society and become more responsible for our own decisions and mistakes, but live in a reality where too often bad decisions are made by immature people. I support education, public outreach and working to positively change behaviors. You support putting doctors and pregnant women in prison.
You’re too lazy to do the work, you want the government to force people to behave rather than you going out, spreading the gospel, and lifting people up to higher things.
It’s just methodology that separates us.

“So you must think that the Commandments suppress people”
I don’t think I ever said that. I did say that the first few commandments eliminate religious preference. A society that enacted the Ten Commandments as law could not also claim ‘freedom of religion’ since according to those commandments there is only one god and that all worship should be directed toward that and no other god.

“Can you explain why freedom of religion is a precept of Christianity and not in Secular states”
You are confusing political ideology with religion. China is a communist/Marxist nation. It is established there that the state is the highest of institutions. The U.S., also a secular nation, holds (or was intended to) the individual as the highest. If an individual chooses for himself to elevate his god higher than himself that is perfectly acceptable under our ‘freedom of religion’.

“Is there any such thing as immorality? Can immorality, if it exist for you, be a right?”
What you call morality / immorality is a semantic debate. If you are asking if there is a universal and immovable set of doctrines that apply to all humans, then no.
There are common sets of rules, applied as laws in most societies that address murder, theft, false witness, etc. This was true before your bible was written and is true today.
Apart from those things that your ten commandments spells out, things like marriage, sex, charity, welfare, playing nice with others, tolerance of non-normal behaviors, women’s rights, racial issues, eating shellfish; ALL these other things vary wildly between religions, even denominations, countries, cultures and point in time. These things are apparently not as ‘universal’ as you seem to believe. It is up to those cultures and religions to dictate to their own as to where the line is drawn. In a nation that respects this diversity, one religion’s or denomination’s own set of interpretations will NOT be applied to the entire nation based on the solitary condition that it is because that one religious creed dictates it.
On any morality issue in the U.S., If a secular argument can be made and agreed to by the majority, and it passes constitutionality, then that morality can be enacted into law. However, it then is a separate entity from the religious doctrine, it is a secular law.

“Society needs the Church to compliment government”
No it doesn’t. Individuals may need religion to give their lives order and meaning beyond that which is provided by the government, but that is an individual’s need, not the nations.

GLADRUNNER
“THE CONSTITUTION AND GOD AREN’T SEPARATE”
APRIL 21, 2009

IRT:
[Man has no more authority to define man than to declare it is Unconstitutional for the Sun to shine.]

“Define man? What are you talking about? The government makes and enforces laws, that’s all.”

ANS:
“Roe v. Wade” concluded the unborn was not a “person.” In order to avoid the Fourth Amend, the Court declared the “conceived” was a “thing” that was eventually part human and never became fully human until it was expunged completely from the mother. This absurd theory, the Trimester Theory of Justice Blackmun, ultimately declared that a pregnant woman is never pregnant with a child. The "Thing Theory" justified partial-birth Abortion.

IRT:
“I would not want to live in a nation that oppresses people as you seek to do. We have had centuries of church-states that oppressed and slaughtered people for their beliefs or lack of them.”

ANS:
Why are you living in America if oppression bothers you. What do you think Americans intentionally taking the life of over 50 million unborn is? How more suppressive to those little children can you be, cutting them apart while they are alive? Strangling the child after it survived an abortion, or legally dumping the helpless child into garbage bag and while still alive, and left to die is not suppression? Obama voted three times that this was legal.

Ever think about a little child having its arms and legs sucked off while living in the mother’s womb? Maybe taking a little child as its being born and plunging a scissors into the back of its head and then sucking out of its brains isn’t very oppressive for the abortionists, but its hell for the baby. I guess children don’t matter too much any more.

Planned Parenthood president Mary Calderone:

“Abortion is the taking of a life." Late-term fetuses are being dissected and their parts sold for huge profits. Only 2 percent of late-term fetuses have any abnormalities. They range in age from 4 to 7 months. Sometimes the babies are born alive, and the doctor must break their neck or beat them to death or put them to drown in the garbage with her mother's blood.

Beverly McMillan:
“On why she stopped doing abortions: ‘It got to where I couldn't stand to see the little bodies anymore." Why are terrorists of radical religions any worse than abortionists?

Christian don’t do these things, These are the fruits of the Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists and Free Thinkers. They make themselves god, and dictate who can live and who must die.

IRT:
“Your plan for a Christian nation is the exact opposite of that which this nation’s founders intended.

You are merely asking the arm of the nations law be employed to uphold your archaic and nonsensical version of bronze-age idol worshipping morality. No thanks pal… You and your friends are free to impose whatever silly rules you want on yourselves.. leave me out of it.”

Mother Theresa:
"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men.

It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters.

And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity." MT

So you must think that the Commandments suppress people. I guess you could say the proscription of murder, lying, stealing and cheating, perjury, fornication, and adultery is a suppression of rights if you think they are rights.

Can you explain why freedom of religion is a precept of Christianity and not in Secular states like China, Cuba, N. Korea the Cong? I wonder how they slaughter people in light of the 5th Commandment.

Is there any such thing as immorality? Can immorality, if it exist for you, be a right? Communism and Fascism think so. Paganism offered up human sacrifices, made women prostitutes in their temples. Who has a right to determine what is immoral or moral, God or man? Thomas Jefferson thought it was Christianity. Society needs the Church to compliment government, as a wife and husband complement each other.

Should any nation be governed by religious rules or authorities?

Here is what the inspired record says:
Proverbs 14:34 - Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

Until there can be a recognized standard of authority (higher than man) on what 'righteousness' is; and what 'sin' is, there will never be any agreement, only a gendering of strife and arguments

Truth on the matter in any generation is obscured because of what is stated in Romans 1:18-32:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

God's ways will benefit man IF man will humbly submit.
Moses told the second generation of Abram's descendants these words in this regard:

Deut. 6:24-25 - And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us."

Such is true in regard to the righteousness of God today; it is found in the gospel - Romans 1:16-17 says, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

Once again since it does bring out the "best" in one Farnaz aka Farnaz2 aka Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1 aka ivri5678 aka Billy8 aka nadinebatra aka stadtbear aka Spark1 aka Masumian MA? aka Ma'sumian? aka Sheikhazdeh-Zavareh? aka Shark2 aka Spidermean3 aka Farnazmansouri1.

The problems with the Baha'i cult from a Christian Apologetics viewpoint-

http://www.gto.org/Articles/b1.htm

an excerpt:

"They (the Baha'i cult) assert that Jesus has returned in the person of Baha’u’llah, who has now interpreted the Scriptures the way He had originally intended. They claim Jesus Christ as one of their “Manifestations” of God, no better or worse than any of the others, but affirm that only they can truly interpret Christ’s parabolic words and the meanings of the other Biblical Scriptures.

Their postmodern, universalistic theology is unbiblical, and totally antithetical toward orthodox, historic Christianity."

BTW, it is obvious said Farnaz continues in her attempts to distract everyone from her significant issues with telling the truth i.e. contrary to her claims, I have only one subscription to the On Faith blog and have no idea what the delusional "Dr?" Farnaz is talking about when she insinuates I am also Tom aka Stadtbear.

Since it has been amply demonstrated below that Stadtbear is not yours truly, since Stadtbear posted using CCNL's language, and CCNL has claimed Stadtbear is I, then it is far from unlikely that STatbear is CCNL, who has posted more than once on his computer prowess, claimed it is easy to be a blogger-imposter, etc.

And who else would have that much motive to impugn me? We know CCNL has posted as Tom, now as Stadtbear.

We know, via Mary Cunningham that Observer used the C* word with her, just as CCNL err Stadtbear did with Gaby. As for the other one or two for which CCNL has "evidence"?

If he is Tom and he is and Stadtbear aka David Dyer, and Observer, the other one or two fall right into place.

We know for a fact that he is a bearer of false witness from this very thread.

It appears that he is a multiple bearer of false witness.

What a tangled web he wove....and it's all coming undone.

Gaby,

Little Bertha? No way! BIG DORA!

OK, OK, Arminius!!!

I didn't refer to myself as such, just used a sleezeball's language directed at me to make a point!

From now on I promise to be the kinder and gentler Gaby you know!

LITTLE Bertha!!! LOL

Gaby, my friend,

Please never again refer to yourself in those terms again.

As Thomas Baum wisely said, he has met many non-believers that are more Christian than many who claim to be Christian. You are such - you understand compassion. I know this. Sure, you are feisty and prickly! All part of your being, and that is good.

Farnaz,

Listen to Arminius's contribution wery carefully.

He a much kinder, gentler person than I.

You could say, he is the knight and I am the....how did Stadtbear put that again???

C*nt???

Tsk, tsk, tsk, such language in polite company!

Whichever Farnaz it is,

This is my answer to your critique of my belief:

VIA DOLOROSA

Sometimes I think
That I was there

In waking dreams
I walk that dreadful road
Of tears and sorrow and pain
I follow just behind Him
And I share His passion
I want so much to help Him
As He carries His heavy cross
Up that hill of fate
For He has always helped me
To carry my own

Sometimes I know
That I was there.

-------------

So, then, call me deluded, that's fine. If I am insane, then it is a gentle and beautiful madness, and, to paraphrase Jefferson, it neither breaks my neighbor's leg nor picks his pocket.

If God has not put His big hand on your shoulder, and said, 'Hey, Look!', then you can't understand that the path of the Spiritual is there, separate from, but coexisting with, the path of reason. I travel both. They do not conflict.

Sorry, but I will not read any reply from you. It will make no sense.

"Somewhere beyond all ideas
of right and wrong
there is a field
I'll meet you there...."
- Rumi

Oh, and Farnaz,

"Anyway, when you start talking about castrating Orthodox Jews, precede that and follow it with offensive language, any "interlocuter" can only hold back for so long. Patronizing people because they are gay will not go over well with said gay people."

Just exactly where was I offensice to gays or promoted castrating Orthodox Jews.

I'd like an exact link please!

Farnaz,

You are a twit!

My deplorable comments to what???

Oh, yeah, we must be going back to the settlements, where that deplorable female set herself on fire.

Is that it?

You know what Farnaz, you have a one track mind. It's time you grew up!

You are in constant opposition, no matter who you speak to!

Not all people are as intolerant as you. Some actually believe you might have something valuable to say at times, alas, you squander every opportunity you have.

Agreed I have a problem with SOB's who think they has eaten the wisdom with the silver spoon, and who abuse their fellow citizens, be they man, woman or child (well especially child) and I would love to give them a dose of their own behavior.

If you were as tolerant and as forgiving as you try to convey to me, then maybe you should forgive those who don't agree with you point of you and those who say you have multiple personalities.

Can't have it both ways dear!

Gaby,
The castration thing is the ultimate punishment for the Taliban monsters who have no remorse for stoning women to death, child molesters, incest inclined males, rapists, etc. Maybe even Hitler, Goering, Goebbles, Stalin, Idi Amin, etc.

Consenting adults are excluded. Are you feeling better now?
_____________________
No, I'm not. When bloggers are disingenuous, I don't feel better. I am not going to replay this whole thing with you now by cutting and pasting your deplorable comments.
__________________________
Why bother anyway. This, which you just posted, speaks, in context, for itself:

Gaby1 :

Hey Arminius, since Farnaz brought it up...

"The Pharisees", there is drink in Germany called just that. It'd served in a coffee cup (includes a little coffee, lots of brandy, and a huge load of whipped cream on top). This way the little old ladies could have their toddy and strawberry cake, all the while getting snuckered and no one knew (or so they thought)....

April 28, 2009 12:53 AM | Report Offensive Comment
_________________________
I hope you see the light, Gaby. It's a bright and beautiful thing!

Farnaz

test

Hey Arminius, since Farnaz brought it up...

"The Pharisees", there is drink in Germany called just that. It'd served in a coffee cup (includes a little coffee, lots of brandy, and a huge load of whipped cream on top). This way the little old ladies could have their toddy and strawberry cake, all the while getting snuckered and no one knew (or so they thought)....

Oh, and Farnaz, I have no problem with gays whatsoever.

The castration thing is the ultimate punishment for the Taliban monsters who have no remorse for stoning women to death, child molesters, incest inclined males, rapists, etc. Maybe even Hitler, Goering, Goebbles, Stalin, Idi Amin, etc.

Consenting adults are excluded. Are you feeling better now?

Gaby,

I'm probably not the best person to explain "alterity," but you can find out about it on the web. A dictionary definition won't do it.

Levinas' writing is notoriously difficult; however, if you have a background in philosophy you may not find it impossible. (I should point out, though, that Derrida did!)

Anyway, when you start talking about castrating Orthodox Jews, precede that and follow it with offensive language, any "interlocuter" can only hold back for so long. Patronizing people because they are gay will not go over well with said gay people.

It won't go over well, Gaby. Talking about castrating Jews and condescending to gays is not treating them like equals.

You know that, don't need me to tell you, surely.

Anyway, I must go. If you have found a friend here, I am glad for you.

Farnaz

Try it Farnaz:

stadtbear@gmail.com

Arminius,

A. There is no evidence whatsoever that "the Jews" raised a mob, or that more than a handful if that many had any awareness that Jesus existed, if he existed at all, bibliography to follow.

B. If you don't hate Christianity in general, you sure as hell hate the Roman Catholic Church. That is your cross to bear, not mine.

I do not hate the Roman Catholic Church. I do not like some of its activities, but, bear in mind that the opinion is shared by many, many, many Catholics, some of whom have stopped attending. As a friend of mine puts it she is Catholic; the RCC is not.

But, again, that isn't the point. If Christian/Catholic antisemites didn't blog here, they wouldn't face (a) my attempts to educate them, (b) my attempts to correct their delusional notions, and (c) my replies IN KIND/

Here are two resources I've frequently informed you of. The Pharisees, who definitely existed during the period when Jesus was said to have, were, at the time, busy translating, codifying interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh). They were beginning work that would later be central to Judaism. They heralded the Rabbinic age, inaugurated it actually.

THEY were of interest to Jews, great interest, as they were determined to end the elitist Sadducee priestly caste forever, and they did, Arminius.

Again, at the time Jesus lived, if he lived, prophets were falling from the trees, declaring themselves sons of God, angels, etc. It was determined they should be permitted to do so. They were understood to have been afflicted by the imperialism, the brutality all around them, the cultural upheavals. See Talmud.

THE so-called trial never happened. No reputable scholar believes it did. Even CCNL knows this. Not only because there was no crime, because it is unlikely that many new or cared about Jesus, if he existed, but because it was PASSOVER.

As well, there could have been no last supper. THE flesh/bread, wine/blood business would have been anethema to them. See Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannaim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akiba_ben_Joseph

There is no hate in my post Arminius. You say you "pity me." I don't pity you. You are responsible for your own words and acts, regardless of your emotional state. We all are.

You can also take some responsibility for what you know. You've been given many links, extensive bibliographies by me with articles from first-rate scholarly journals, books from university and other prestigious presses.

Bibliographies aren't bigotry. Denying evidence and using it to assault someone because her beliefs differ from yours is.

When I first came on these blogs, well over a year ago, I sought these things:
1. To learn about what other people believe - or don't - and how they feel about it.
2. To engage in good and friendly conversation. Spirited, sure, but not bitter or hateful.
3. To make some friends, if possible.

And, early on, all those things were possible, and it was wonderful.

Now, though, the good minds have left, there is little trust left, all is now bitter fighting.

I have made another friend, though, and that makes it all worthwhile. It's not what you have in your life - whether possessions or overrunning a blog - that matters, it is WHO you have in your life that matters. If you don't have that 'who' in your life, then you are an empty shell. I am blessed with some very special who's, some met here.

Farnaz:

"What you and they need is a sense of moral obligation to one another, especially, if they are minorities, to recognize that you can never fully grasp their difference, but that you can grasp your ethical obligation to them and live by it."

Moral obligation to one another...absolutely!

But just as I may not "grasp their difference", they do not grasp mine either. Therefore, minority or or not, it's everyone's obligation to live side by side without disharmony. Minorities need to learn to live with the majority and vice versa.

I don't know why you think I am anti anything. That is just your conjecture. I believe in justice, but you seem to believe that minorities of any sort warrant special treatment. Well, they don't!

If you want to be a nice neighbor, I'll treat you like one. If not, I'll treat you like the nincompoop you are. You step on my space, I'll step on yours, that is human nature. And you should know.

Gaby,

Again, when you talk about castrating people, of whom you know nothing, when you patronize people whose sexuality differs from yours, and when you then abuse them, you are going to get a response.

Why write that sort of thing?

As for Stadtbear, he is not a friend. He is a person, obviously literate, with whom I chat on a blog. You may have found a true friend here and I'm happy for you if that is the case.

I don't seek friends on blogs. I am curious though, are you certain the email came from Stadtbear? I ask only because you did post your email address. Anyone could have used it.

Gaby,

You write: "The likes on this blog who don't are the ones who are lost. The ones who have no compassion for anyone but their own creed, the ones who malign, deceive, and slander."

Yes, they are lost. And many of them are imperiling the rest of us. Your words, Gaby, are words to live by, to remember, every time you see someone who doesn't look like you, think like you, or come from the country you come from or whose sexuality differs from yours.

They do not need your compassion Gaby, by virtue of their difference, any more than you need theirs by virtue of yours.

What you and they need is a sense of moral obligation to one another, especially, if they are minorities, to recognize that you can never fully grasp their difference, but that you can grasp your ethical obligation to them and live by it. Levinas, Alterity.

Goodnight.

Farnaz

Farnaz,

Excuse me for piping in but I just had to.

"You, obviously, aren't responsible for what your forebears did or for what some of your co-religionists are doing. One thing, ARminius, has nothing to do with another"

Excuse me? Then why am I being called a Nazi, and uncaring human, a ... well let's not go there...., your friend Stadtbear(the one with a human mind) has laid it all out.

You know, Farnaz, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Good grief. I hope ccnl doesn't think he is within space ship distance of either postmodern or universalist theology.

Joining the two, as ccnl asserts the article does, is interesting, though.

Perhaps, ccnl is converting to Bahai? If so, this would be a good opportunity for us all to learn about it, perhaps, interest OnFaith on their perilous state in Iran, while they are still alive, that is.

Some Farnaz or another,

Let's get this straight once and for all.

1. I am nobody's f***ing martyr.
2. The Romans executed Jesus, the Jews did not. Sure, they raised a mob, but from a political angle, it was a matter of survival for them. Blaming the Jews was a crime, a black stain on Christianity. Roman soldiers gleefully drove the nails in, not Jews.
3. Most major religions have their proponents of ethnic cleansing. The Jews are no exception, but those sad people who support that are, fortunately, in a small minority. Sure, we Christians have our bunch of right-wing-nuts. But most of them are far-out Protestants, not RCs.
4. If you don't hate Christianity in general, you sure as hell hate the Roman Catholic Church. That is your cross to bear, not mine.
5. I do not hate you. I pity you.

Arminius,

Lest you once again find yourself the "victim," let me say that when I said you weren't the victim in this I meant in the quarrel you picked with me. You, obviously, aren't responsible for what your forebears did or for what some of your co-religionists are doing. One thing, ARminius, has nothing to do with another.

You seized on one sentence and made yourself the martyr, one sentence that you provoked.

Puhleez. What good is it for you to go around seeking enemies, creating enemies where there are none? This isn't the first time, and I'm not the first one.

The problems with the Baha'i cult from a Christian Apologetics viewpoint-

http://www.gto.org/Articles/b1.htm

an excerpt:

"They (the Baha'i cult) assert that Jesus has returned in the person of Baha’u’llah, who has now interpreted the Scriptures the way He had originally intended. They claim Jesus Christ as one of their “Manifestations” of God, no better or worse than any of the others, but affirm that only they can truly interpret Christ’s parabolic words and the meanings of the other Biblical Scriptures.

Their postmodern, universalistic theology is unbiblical, and totally antithetical toward orthodox, historic Christianity."

Arminius,

"hatred of Christianity"

Arminius, please. That's ridiculous and you know it. If you post, or paste, on one Israeli lunatic bigot or another, paste following Rick, to demonstrate that Israel, one of the most diverse societies in the world, is interested in "ethnic cleansing," it is fair for me to say I can post the names of contemporary Christians/Catholics, CLerics, btw., who would like the ethnically cleanse America of Jews.

There are others who would like to cleanse it and the world of any number of other kinds of people. And you know it.

The truth is not bigotry. These people are not a tiny minority. Does that mean that all Christians/Catholics want to "ethnically cleanse" America? Would the subject have come up if you hadn't raised it?

I could also name politicians. You are not the victim in this, Arminius. You are the victimizer. Looking back at history, Arminius, have you seen Jews murdering hundreds of millions of people in the name of the Trinity? Have you read Casas, yet? Cabeza de Vaca? The slave narratives? The journals of knights during the Crusades? The ravings of Christian nazis? Hitler said he was a Catholic all his life, deranged though he was, his words.

These are facts. If you want to make yourself the Christian martyr, go ahead, but, remember, it was the Romans, not Jews, who were responsible for those horrible deaths.

As for CCNL--he is a tortured, vicsious demented man (?).

And you are in company dangerous to your very soul.

I wish you no ill, Arminius, never have. Would that you could honestly say the same to me.

Arminius,

Never a fantasy....what we feel inside of us defines us.

I have my sword in one hand and my compassion in the other, even if only metaphorically, as you do you claymore.

I believe in justice for ALL, and I know you do as well.

The likes on this blog who don't are the ones who are lost. The ones who have no compassion for anyone but their own creed, the ones who malign, deceive, and slander.

Namaste, Arminius!!!

Gaby,

SpiritualMongrel is definitely OK.

SpiritualMongrel:

I like your style!

Hey, Gaby,

Hackles? Hell no - woad war paint! Claymore in hand, shouting my battle cry!

(It's a nice fantasy, anyway....)

Arminius,

You have hackles???? Holy Cow, I never thought you had it in you!

Some Farnaz or another said to me:

"It is a strange brand of Christianity you profess, my friend, one which puts you in solidarity with CCNL, whom you have ever accused of "bigotry and despite."

And you, who are consumed with your hatred of Christianity - what gives you the right to say that? CCNL, as much of a fool as he is, has more right to criticize me about that than you do.

And, oh yes, do not presume to insult me by calling me 'friend'.

"Baha'u'llah was the most recent, the Manifestation of God for the New Era. His was one of the first world religions to preach the unity of the whole human race and to teach that all religions are the work of one God."

Stupid me, here I though that would be Jacob Josevz, aka, a multitude of aliases.

Oh, look here Arminius, I left the readership speechless! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Aaahhh, and CCNL...I took the brunt for you, cause Stadtbear really wanted you to respond to it's, not me.

Unfortunately, the idiot sent it to me instead and then had the audacity to accuse ME to be YOU!!! Lordy, Lordy!!!!!

There is only one Gaby and that is me!

For the rest of the readership...

Bye the way....David Dyer is Stadtbear.

And now I am done with him,her,IT

Preferably I'd like to start with this slime ball....

From: David Dyer To: Gabriele Kelly

Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:15:25 PM
Subject: Re:

You are a psychotic lesbian. No doubt your dogs follow you to bed because they are attracted by the unwashed smell of your cu*t. Dogs are not particular. They'll lick anything..

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Gabriele Kelly wrote:

Well, my dear, have at it!!! I will be more than happy to make your e-mails available to everyone who asks. Let's see who is stalking whom!!!

And your language leaves much to be desired.

I am now blocking you from my contact list, so you can no longer bother me!

From: David Dyer
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:32:46 AM
Subject: Re:

I have reported you to yahoo for stalking, you plug ugly c*nt. No wonder your husband is dumping you. You are an idiot. Maybe you will die soon and the world will be a better place.

Well, Farnaz,I'd like to castrate a few. Not only that, I'd like to do it with a rusty old knife, and then have them eat their gonads in front of their henchmen!

Gaby1,

Take care of yourself, and be well. NB, though, words are can be weapons of mass destruction.

They always had that potential and always will. The Taliban started with them, and, as know, they are far, far from alone in history.

Think before you post about castrating people.

Farnaz

Farnaz,

Arminius is a true blue nice person, so don't you go after him.

Joke of the day....

"Of course, Stadtbear has a human brain (and a very good one, at that).....

That creature is the most foul, evil creatures I have come across. It doesn't even classify close to human!

A Hypothetical Lunacracy and What it Might Mean

Concerned Cretins Neurotically, if not pshychotically, Looming, everywhere, no thorazine in sight. Drunk. Of course.

A Hypothetical Theocracy and What It Might Mean:

Place: Austin, Texas controlled by the Baha'i "faith"/cult-

Churches, mosques and temples are converted Baha'i houses of worship with statues, songs and salutes to the last great prophet, Baha' Ullah, the "Glory of Allah". Austin citizens are required to follow the Baha'i calendar calendar of 19 months of 19 days (with four additional days). Adherents are expected to pray daily, fast 19 days a year, and keep to a strict ethical code to include the banning of alcoholic beverages. Homosexuality and gambling are prohibited.

The Christmas, Easter and Ramadan periods/celebrations are replaced with Ridvan (April 21-May ?). On the first, the ninth and the twelfth day's of Ridvan, Bahai's do not work. People observe prayers, meetings and the celebrations include feasting, dining, giving gifts to friends and alms to the needy.

All non-believers are deported to Houston.

Schools to include the University of Texas, Austin are converted to Baha'i learning centers.

Banks are taken over by The International Baha'i Fund, administered by the Universal House of Baha'i Justice which supports the growth and development of the Baha'i "faith" throughout the world. The Fund also helps maintain the Faith’s sacred shrines and other endowments at the Baha'i World Center in Haifa, Israel.

http://www.uhj.net/- a bit of weirdness???

"Singled out as Authentic – as the only Institution in the world that has the living descendant of King David as its president, the great grandson of 'Abdu'l-Baha seated upon the throne of King David which is to last forever (Psalm 89) – this House alone, the true UHJ, has the Divine Power and God given Knowledge through the “KEY of DAVID” to heal the world of all its ills and guide a wayward and forlorn humanity back out of the gloom of the darkness of war into the light of real fellowship, truth, felicity and brotherly love in the shade of the divine and holy Tree of Life – man reunited with God in the garden of God as this earth was meant to be – in fulfillment of this sacred verse."

Hmmm, this hypothetical Baha'i theocracy in Austin would appear to be a lot more peaceful than an Islamic one. That 19 day, 19 month calendar would however be really, really weird. Baptists would fit well considering the Baha'i cult's ban on dancing, drinking and homosexuality!

will you guy, guys, gal or gals please stop with all the "alias" talk? sheesh... your meta-comments are drowning out the substantive ones.

from: kjohnson3 | February 17, 2009 10:29 AM "

"Interestingly, the proof of the multiple aliases is on display
prominently in this thread. Look carefully at the posts in which
her sign-on name doesn't match the alias she's writing under.
For example, in her post of Feb 10, 3:18 a.m., she signed on as the Yael alias but then wrote a "Dear Yael" message and signed it "Farnaz."

Another, more recent example: her post of Feb. 16, 9:52 a.m. She

signed on as Farnaz but wrote a "Dear Farnaz" message and
signed it "Yael."

I guess it's tough keeping up with the finer details of having
several personas."

See also comments posted by: themoderate | February 11, 2009
9:42 PM

See also comments posted by: Mary_Cunningham | January 13, 2009 7:22 AM

Dictionary: im·pos·tor or im·pos·ter (ĭm-pŏs'tər

n.
One who engages in deception under an assumed name or

identity

e.g.

Farnaz aka Farnaz2 aka Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1
aka ivri5678 aka Billy8 aka nadinebatra aka stadtbear aka
Spark1 aka Masumian MA? aka Ma'sumian? aka
Sheikhazdeh-Zavareh? aka Shark2 aka Spidermean3 aka
Farnazmansouri1.

BTW, it does not take a computer genius to sign up with any of
the 1400 e-mail services to get a new e-mail address in order to
register on On Faith with a new alias.

BTW, these aliases do not qualify as Buddha's reincarnated
clones.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2:
First, The five proofs of god, even if they were bulletproof logic, which they are not, does nothing to tell us WHICH god is THE god. Aquinas never logically proves that it was the god of Abraham that was the first mover. You may sir, be worshipping the wrong god. I know yours SAYS he is the creator, but what god does not? The Greeks may have been right, or maybe the Egyptians… or perhaps the Norse.
As to the validity of Aquinas’ logic, I don’t buy it, and neither do others, many of them much, much smarter than me.
For example: “therefore we must stop at some first mover which is moved by nothing else”
Can be translated into: “Logically speaking there HAS to be an unmoving first mover for my logic to be logical. “ In other words Aquinas surmises that God must be able to be proved logically, within the ability of a man’s mind to discern that logic.
That is simply inconsistent with the supernatural-ness of god. Your god is infinite, omniscient, omnipotent. NONE of these concepts are logical based on our awareness of the universe. None of these things are conceived of as possible with one exception, god. We take all things we don’t understand about god and are quite comfortable saying that this quality of god is beyond our ability to fathom. Yet Aquinas reduced god’s very existence into a conclusion that in spite of all his supernatural, mysterious and unseen qualities, he MUST be able to be deduced logically in OUR minds.

“saw a beautiful girl, about the age of 24 who had AIDS, testifying to Congress. She caught it from her dentist, not from sex; he was gay. Three weeks later she died. Who protected her? Was it her fault, or the dentist’s fault”

Seriously, you’re actually asserting that HIV is a GAY disease? What is this 1982?

It doesn’t take gay sex to spread HIV/AIDS. You can spread it as easily as I. Transmission of the virus through bodily fluid exchange is how it spreads. This doesn’t require gay sex at all.
While you are at it why not condemn black Africans as well? Look at the numbers of black Africans of all sexual types. Will god strike down all lack Africans as well since HIV/AIDS is spread primarily by them?
None of this by the way has anything to do with the problem you guys have with the gays. It can’t be the HIV thing, since you guys have been gay haters for a lot longer than AIDS has been around or known of. Surely you’re going to start quoting Leviticus here in a moment, aren’t you? Please do….

“You might note that the Secularist ACLU has challenged Public Schools teaching Abstinence . They claim it is a Constitutional violation of Church and State”

You are misstating facts. No one, not even the ACLU is against abstinence. They are suing certain programs that teach/monitor abstinence-ONLY programs in schools. That is no small difference. ALL public school sex education teaches abstinence as the best method to avoid disease and unwanted pregnancy. But that’s not enough, you wish for teenagers to remain ignorant.
As for the church/ state issue that you mention, From the ACLU files:
“This past July, in a case brought by the ACLU, a federal court ordered the state of Louisiana to cease funding religious activities in its Governor's Program on Abstinence. See ACLU of Louisiana v. Foster, No. 02-1440, 2002 WL 1733651 (July 24, 2002). This program, which runs on federal and state dollars, has habitually funded abstinence-only programs that, among other things, present theater skits with Jesus as a character, feature a curriculum entitled ""God's Gift of Life,"" and minister to teens about the ""scriptural, spiritual, and practical foundation for combating the issues of premarital sex."" The Department should not countenance constitutional violations of this nature by expanding abstinence-only programs.”
They put Jesus in a public school skit about sex… They deserve to be sued.

"Bearing of false witness cannot be tolerated, period."

Then stop doing it.

Bearing of false witness cannot be tolerated, period.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADRUNNER
“RELIGION MUST PERMEAT AND GUIDE GOVERNMENT NOT RULE IT”"
APRIL 21, 2009

IRT:
[The Creator endowed man with certain inalienable rights]

“Which creator?”

ANS:
There is only one Creator; multiple Creators are an oxymoron, see Aristotle’s Prime Mover, and the Summa Theologica, Aquinas’s five Proofs of God.

IRT:
[In addition, the Court has found a Constitutional right to immorality. Hence, we have an arbitrary Constitutional right, under the guise of “privacy” and “liberty” to engage in “gay sex though gay sex is a major cause of a deadly disease, AIDS, a deadly societal hazard of which over 26 million victims worldwide have died from, and has caused countless infected HIV victims.]

“There it is, it pops up every time. What is it with you guys and homosexuality? Unprotected sex with an infected partner is the only cause of the spread of AIDS. It doesn’t matter which kind of sex, nor does the gender of either partner matter.”

ANS:
I saw a beautiful girl, about the age of 24 who had AIDS, testifying to Congress. She caught it from her dentist, not from sex; he was gay. Three weeks later she died. Who protected her? Was it her fault, or the dentist’s fault?

Do you know how many innocent people die because of AIDS through no fault of their own? Do people who have AIDS or HIV even care if they may be a cause of another’s death?

How many even know they have AIDS? Are you checked regularly? How many died from infected blood transfusions. What kind of protection do you have to avoid catching it? Think you couldn’t be infected by a blood transfusion? There isn’t any protection.

http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

“The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized.”—CDC

You might note that the Secularist ACLU has challenged Public Schools teaching Abstinence . They claim it is a Constitutional violation of Church and State.

“Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission.

While condom use has been associated with a lower risk of cervical cancer, the use of condoms should not be a substitute for routine screening with Pap smears to detect and prevent cervical cancer, nor should it be a substitute for HPV vaccination among those eligible for the vaccine.

Theoretical Basis for Protection.

Protection against genital ulcer diseases and HPV depends on the site of the sore/ulcer or infection.

Latex condoms can only protect against transmission when the ulcers or infections are in genital areas that are covered or protected by the condom. Thus, consistent and correct use of latex condoms would be expected to protect against transmission of genital ulcer diseases and HPV in some, but not all, instances.”—(Ibid)

It’s not so simple. You might try telling how simple it is to the over 26 million that have died from AIDS alone and to its victims on the link below how simple it is to be protected.

http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/HIVData/EpiUpdate/EpiUpdArchive/2006/Default.asp

The latest statistics on the world epidemic of AIDS & HIV were published by UNAIDS/WHO in July 2008, and refer to the end of 2007.

Estimate Range
People living with HIV/AIDS in 2007 36.1 million

What kind of protection did these little children get?
Children living with HIV/AIDS in 2007-2.3 million: And, how many did the mothers have aborted before they were born?

Gladerunner,

gladerunner :

CCNL"As seen below, Farnaz is again talking to herself via her latest alias Spidermean3"

I'm not sure anyone but you really cares... why don't you two just get a private room somewhere and have at it.
__________________________________

I don't want a room with this fool, but you are certainly welcome to court him. I'd advise against it, particularly since Swine flu, named after him, is around.
_________________________________

Best advice remains: IGNORE IT/HIM/WHATEVER
__________________

Just keep me out of it.

I think this a particularly relevant question for the Somalia context. In a nation that is literally a failed state and is probably one of the most chaotic places in the world this question becomes relevant. Though a religious government may not be the ideal government to put into place, at this point if it is the only governing body available, thus it is likely to be a better choice than the anarchy that currently exists. It may be one of the only credible and organized institution in the entire region. Is an Islamic state better than no state?

On a general level though, every single thoughtful person makes a faith commitment. For instance, either matter came from consciousness or consciousness came from matter, either way their is no objective way of proving either. The systems that we choose to govern our lives are usually internally consistent and elements within the system can be proved using the framework of the system itself. However, every worldview or system of thought, cannot stand up to external proof, and even the contention of requiring a proof or "evidence" falls within a particular paradigm. Furthermore, every system results in the ritualization of behaviour that reflects the values of the system.
Systems of governance defaults to a specific set of rules and beliefs that it views are fundamentally right within a certain system. Consequently, it is a myth at the very least that governments can exist with an objective set of values and practices that are removed from beliefs.

I think this a particularly relevant question for the Somalia context. In a nation that is literally a failed state and is probably one of the most chaotic places in the world this question becomes relevant. Though a religious government may not be the ideal government to put into place, at this point if it is the only governing body available, thus it is likely to be a better choice than the anarchy that currently exists. It may be one of the only credible and organized institution in the entire region. Is an Islamic state better than no state?

On a general level though, every single thoughtful person makes a faith commitment. For instance, either matter came from consciousness or consciousness came from matter, either way their is no objective way of proving either. The systems that we choose to govern our lives are usually internally consistent and elements within the system can be proved using the framework of the system itself. However, every worldview or system of thought, cannot stand up to external proof, and even the contention of requiring a proof or "evidence" falls within a particular paradigm. Furthermore, every system results in the ritualization of behaviour that reflects the values of the system.
Systems of governance defaults to a specific set of rules and beliefs that it views are fundamentally right within a certain system. Consequently, it is a myth at the very least that governments can exist with an objective set of values and practices that are removed from beliefs.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2 “Christianity wants government to adhere to the Natural Moral Laws, and not defile human nature.”

“The Church is in the business of saving souls, not governing them.”

Then the church should go about changing the hearts of men through witness and revelation, NOT by hiring the government to do its dirty work.

“There’s just one problem with your description of morality, it is not subjective as you’re suggesting”
Certainly it is. Many, many things are ‘moral’ in some situations but not others. Walking around naked for example. It’s quite okay in the privacy of your own home, but immoral in a school playground or at a school sporting event. The same can be said for belching or passing gas, and a host of other things. Hitting someone in the face is immoral, unless that person is attacking you or your family. Eating pork is immoral if you are Jewish, but not if you are Christian. Taking the Lord’s name in vain is immoral, taking the name of someone else’s god in vain is not. Believing in Jesus as the resurrected savior / messiah is moral, unless you are not Christian.
All morality is subjective. That does not mean there is no morality, only that it varies from time to time, place to place.

“You’ve failed to read the definitions of religion; two apply to Secular Atheism”
Why would I look up definitions of religion to define atheism?

atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity
(Merriam Webster)

It is NOT a religion. Any more than NOT consuming food is eating.

“So, is it necessary to have a supernatural element for a belief to be a religion?”
Religion: 1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(Merriam Webster)

“If your rights do not come from God, where do you get them except from man, a.k.a. government?”
You are correct, we the people ordained and established, as in :
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

“The survival of a State is directly in proportion to the State’s adherence to the Christian principles.”
Define ‘survival’ Why is China still around and doing well? Japan? India? Indonesia?
Currently 74 % of Americans claim to love Jesus, yet you say we are being punished as a nation for our failings… yet all those other countries are almost completely non-Christian.
I suppose you’ll say the punishment hasn’t happened yet…. 2000 years and counting….

“What is taking place in America is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?”

We don’t say a mother can kill her own child. We say she can abort an early fetus. You may wish to ignore the difference, but that is your burden, your choice. God aborts fetuses every day, about a third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.

“Your rights are expressed in the bible in the “Ten Commandments,” and in reason and common sense, that God gives to you”

There are no ‘rights’ in the ten commandments. Certainly not the freedom of religion. Quite the opposite in fact. No other gods before me, no graven images, keep the Sabbath holy. Those would deny anyone any other religious belief other than one. That sir is not freedom of religion, that is FORBIDDING freedom of religion.

CCNL"As seen below, Farnaz is again talking to herself via her latest alias Spidermean3"

I'm not sure anyone but you really cares... why don't you two just get a private room somewhere and have at it.

I am Farnaz2. I had a lot of difficulty signing on as Farnaz2, as I explained on Susan Jacoby's thread, so I signed on using the full name I always used, sans the i in Mansouri, my mother's name. My "middle" name is Farnaz.

It occurs to me that this isn't the first time I had a problem. Once before I couldn't sign on as Farnaz2, which by the way, was bizarre in itself, since there has never been another Farnaz. That time, I was able to sign on as Farnaz1.

It suddenly strikes me that CCNL, who has repeatedly spoken of his knowledge of computers may be behind this and much more. He recently posted as Stadtbear as we all saw.

In addition, he has no qualms about dragging a UT professor into his assault on me, an identifiable human being, to whom he could do real harm.

He is a bearer of false witness, antisemitic, virulently anti-Islamic, anti-gay, sexist, a bearer of false witness, etc.

Not to mention OCD. I would strongly advise skipping his posts, not letting them interfere in discussion. That is his objective. He will not succeed in converting anyone to his Dominick Crossanized version of Catholicism, since he is a walking advertisement against it.

He doesn't wish to engage. He wishes to impose. Ignore him. He may not go away. The house may always have a bit of chipping paint, but if it's only a bit, one soon stops seeing it.

Dictionary: im·pos·tor or im·pos·ter (ĭm-pŏs'tər

n.
One who engages in deception under an assumed name or identity

e.g.

Farnaz aka Farnaz2 aka Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1 aka ivri5678 aka Billy8 aka nadinebatra aka stadtbear aka Spark1 aka Masumian MA? aka Ma'sumian? aka Sheikhazdeh-Zavareh? aka Shark2 aka Spidermean3 aka Farnazmansouri1.

As seen below, Farnaz is again talking to herself via her latest alias Spidermean3.

Other aliases: Farnaz2 aka Farnaz1 aka Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1 aka ivri5678 aka Billy8 aka nadinebatra aka stadtbear aka Spark1 aka Masumian MA? aka Ma'sumian? aka Sheikhazdeh-Zavareh? aka Shark2 aka Farnazmansouri1.

Again from: kjohnson3 | February 17, 2009 10:29 AM "

"Interestingly, the proof of the multiple aliases is on display prominently in this thread. Look carefully at the posts in which her sign-on name doesn't match the alias she's writing under.
For example, in her post of Feb 10, 3:18 a.m., she signed on as the Yael alias but then wrote a "Dear Yael" message and signed it "Farnaz."

Another, more recent example: her post of Feb. 16, 9:52 a.m. She signed on as Farnaz but wrote a "Dear Farnaz" message and signed it "Yael."

I guess it's tough keeping up with the finer details of having several personas."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADRUNNER
“RELIGION MUST PERMEAT AND GUIDE GOVERNMENT NOT RULE IT”"

IRT:
[The Founding Fathers (F/F) based the Constitution on our Christian beliefs.]

“That’s just ignorant. Show me where the bible discusses free press, three branches of government, presidential selection process, state of the union speeches, a census, etc. Some of us have READ the constitution you know. Show us the biblical basis references for the constitution.”

ANS:
Your rights are expressed in the bible in the “Ten Commandments,” and in reason and common sense, that God gives to you. The Ten Commandments are precepts bearing on the fundamental obligations of religion and morality and embodying the revealed expression of the Creator's will in relation to man's whole duty to God and to his fellow-creatures.”

Freedom of Religion is expressed in the first three Commandments. It is defended in the 1st and 9th Amendments.

The right to marry and have a family is expressed in Genesis; “Increase and multiply” and in the Fourth Commandment, and the 9th Amend.

Man’s Right to Life and the honor of his body as well as the source of life is the object of the Fifth and Sixth Commandment, and are recognized in the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Of the Seventh Commandment is man’s right to lawful possessions. The right to own property is written in the 3rd, 4th & 5th Amend.

The Sixth Commandment is that “All men are created equal. The Eighth Commandment protects man’s good name. These are protected by the 9th Amend

And in order to make man still more secure in the enjoyment of his rights, it is declared an offense against God to desire to wrong him, in his family rights by the Ninth Commandment; and in his property rights by the Tenth. These rights are protected in the Constitutional Amendments 3, 4, 5, and 9.

This legislation expresses not only the Maker's positive will, but the voice of nature as well--the laws which govern our being and are written more or less clearly in every human heart.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm

“Right, as a substantive (my right, his right), designates the object of justice. When a person declares he has a right to a thing, he means he has a kind of dominion over such thing, which others are obliged to recognize.” Note that Justice is protected in Amendments 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Right may therefore be defined as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and use a thing as one's own. It is thus essentially distinct from obligation; in virtue of an obligation we should, in virtue of a right, we may do or omit something.

Again, right is a moral or legal authority, and, as such, is distinct from merely physical superiority or pre-eminence. The thief who steals something without being detected enjoys the physical control of the object, but no right to it. On the contrary, his act is an injustice, a violation of right, and he is bound to return the stolen object to its owner.

Right is called a moral or legal authority, because it emanates from a law that assigns to one the dominion over the thing and imposes on others the obligation to respect this dominion. “

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2 wrote:

"religion is a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

I pursue, with zeal and conscientious devotion, the activity and cause of breeding scottish terriers. According to your daffynition, that is a religion for me.

Any idea how this affects my tax status?

Arminius wrote:

"It was the imposter Spidey..."

Actually, the word is spelled 'impostor'.

You can take the boy out of Tennessee, but can you take Tennessee out of the boy?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADRUNNER
“RELIGION AND THE SECULAR WORLD"

IRT:
“Would you seriously want it any other way? Do you actually want a religious code to be enacted as the law of the land? Are you assuming I’m talking about YOUR religious code? What if I’m not?”

ANS
No and neither does Christianity. Christianity wants government to adhere to the Natural Moral Laws, and not defile human nature.

God’s religion, Christianity, has said through Jesus,” Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s." Religion’s purpose is not to rule as a government, but to guide man wisely to govern himself, so that all men may achieve their eternal happiness. The Church is in the business of saving souls, not governing them.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “If not the Church were do we go for our morals and ethics.”

There’s just one problem with your description of morality, it is not subjective as you’re suggesting. It’s not my religious code or morals and natural laws; they are all God’s domain. Man only recognizes them, as did the Founding Fathers.

Again, those who have defied the NML have committed social suicide. They eventually invite the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse upon them, Pestilence, Famine, War and Death. Check out the history of those who have defiled them, viz. USSR, North Korea, Sudan, the Congo, and Hitler’s Germany who have done these things.

IRT:
[Then even atheism is a religion, or, as is said, a secular religion.]

IRT:
“That dog don’t hunt.” Atheism is not a religion it has no ceremonies or rites, it has no priests or seminaries. It has no membership roles or worship services, it has no saints or messiahs. Atheism is not a religion by any definition.”

ANS:
Then you need a new dog. You’ve failed to read the definitions of religion; two apply to Secular Atheism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

“A body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.” Or, “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. In addition, “something one believes in and follows devotedly.” As was said, that under those definitions even atheists is a religion.

“Religion [was] not, as too often now, used as equivalent for godliness; but . . . it expressed the outer form and embodiment which the inward spirit of a true or a false devotion assumed. --Trench.”

And finally, "religion is a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Hence, atheism is a Secular Religion under such a definition.—(Ibid)

IRT:
“Atheism has no supernatural element. It has no single fixed moral code.”

ANS:
Hinduism has no supernatural deity nor does Buddhism. So, is it necessary to have a supernatural element for a belief to be a religion? In accord with the above definition of religion, atheism is a religion. It is a religion against a religion. See link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

IRT
[Consequently, atheism is a denouncement of God and our Constitution.]

"Wrong again. Atheism is merely a non-belief in a god, that’s all. And God isn’t even mentioned in the constitution. The constitution is a set of rules preambled by “We the People . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”

ANS:
Do you believe you have inalienable rights, natural rights that have been endowed by God on all mankind? The founding Fathers believed that, and said so in the Declaration. They wrote those rights into the Bill of Rights. If your rights do not come from God, where do you get them except from man, a.k.a. government?

What man gives, man can take away. Mao, Saddam, Stalin, and Hitler, the Congo, Sudan, and North Korea believed man is the sole authority of human rights and in the rule that “Might makes Right.

IRT:
“Of the people, by the people. Atheism is not mentioned, neither is your religion, your god, or any other god. The constitution stands on its own, with or without a god.”

ANS:
Without a transcendental authority, you would have no rights except what government gives you. Presently, the government has taken away the right to life of the unborn. That’s what Secularism does, viz. it gives all authority to man alone. America wasn’t founded on that theory.

Farnaz1 wrote:

"That which our former President, born again, and born-once Vice President"

Now THAT is funny. May I use it?

Farnaz1 wrote:

"That which our former President, born again, and born-once Vice President"

Now THAT is funny. May I use it?

Shark2's comments have the look, "smell" and typical vitriol of one Farnaz aka Farnaz2 aka Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1 aka ivri5678 aka Billy8 aka nadinebatra aka stadtbear aka Spark1 aka Masumian MA? aka Ma'sumian? aka Sheikhazdeh-Zavareh? aka Shark2 aka Spidermean3 aka Farnazmansouri1.

Again from: kjohnson3 | February 17, 2009 10:29 AM "

"Interestingly, the proof of the multiple aliases is on display prominently in this thread. Look carefully at the posts in which her sign-on name doesn't match the alias she's writing under.
For example, in her post of Feb 10, 3:18 a.m., she signed on as the Yael alias but then wrote a "Dear Yael" message and signed it "Farnaz."

Another, more recent example: her post of Feb. 16, 9:52 a.m. She signed on as Farnaz but wrote a "Dear Farnaz" message and signed it "Yael."

I guess it's tough keeping up with the finer details of having several personas."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADRUNNER
"CHRISTIANITY AND CIVIL LAW"

IRT
"If your sect wishes to ban dancing or modern music, then nothing stands in your way of running your religion that way. You and your fellow believers are free to follow your religion’s tenets as they see fit. What this nation’s laws will NOT stand for is your religion, or any other religion forcing non-adherents to obey a set of rules that they do not believe in."

ANS:
There is no “our religion there is God’s religion, only one religion is given to all men by God.

Religion isn’t concerned with dancing or modern music per se, unless it is injurious to the common good. What affects the common good affect everyone. Thus, if music insults women, defines their human dignity, makes them objects of pleasure, promotes drugs, scandalizes humanity, and promotes illicit sex, then the Church opposes these things because they destroy the individual, the family, and the social order. This is exemplified in Godless, pagan, secular nations where man exists for the State and the State exists for itself.

The Church is concerned with the NML and giving to God what is God’s, viz. one’s self. Man does this by honoring God’s laws that assist man in man's life and orders society so that all may achieve eternal happiness, the purpose of their creation.

You may be correct about our nation not standing for Christian morality. The fate of nations that ignore God is not pretty. The survival of a State is directly in proportion to the State’s adherence to the Christian principles. Those nations who defy the counsel of God's Church destroy themselves.

The Natural Moral Law says all men are created equal in dignity and worth; our Court said they are not. Consequently, we took the life of over 50 million unborn. Worldwide some 43 million die per year. Though the Church says every person is equal in dignity and is sacred, America said “No.” Secular America’s majority said those little unborn have no right to live. That, in effect, is saying the mother is better than the child is, so much better she can have it killed.

"What is taking place in America is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?

Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants. It is a spiritual poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish—Mother Theresa."

If you become inoperative your life can be ended. Consequently, you have no right to live even if you are an innocent adult.

Thus, Terri Schiavo was starved to death for fourteen excruciating days. They put dogs to sleep so they don’t suffer. Why not shoot the defenseless in the brain or poison them in opposition to suffering if they are just a vegetable. It would have been better than starvation and dehydration. However, we are not just vegetables as the Secularists contend.

Under the regime of Secularism, might makes right. That is what is occurring in America today. There is avidity for the majority to destroy itself.

farnaz1,
i have posted this question elsewhere, but no one has answered yet (i haven't checked other threads in a few hours). it seems like an easy question given that islam is the religion of peace and all that. all i get is assurances that "tolerant" verses are in there - but no examples...

so again, can anyone here point me to a few tolerant non-superseded verses in the koran?

Is this forum for the net-cafe employees who have too much time to post dirty comments such as CNNL.

Some net-cafe employees are free to post all sort of abusive posts, making a serious brain stroming forum a fun-game.

CNNL:

Shut up with your stupid assertions, You are no one to equate me with anyone on this blog.
Sorry! but you seems tobe a professional blackmailer.Do you have any serious to discuss ?

Again, part of the evidence trail to Farnaz's (now Farnaz1Mansour1) alias/straw men charades:

from: kjohnson3 | February 17, 2009 10:29 AM "

"Interestingly, the proof of the multiple aliases is on display prominently in this thread. Look carefully at the posts in which her sign-on name doesn't match the alias she's writing under.
For example, in her post of Feb 10, 3:18 a.m., she signed on as the Yael alias but then wrote a "Dear Yael" message and signed it "Farnaz."

Another, more recent example: her post of Feb. 16, 9:52 a.m. She signed on as Farnaz but wrote a "Dear Farnaz" message and signed it "Yael."

I guess it's tough keeping up with the finer details of having several personas."

Farnaz's current aliases that we are aware of:

Farnaz2 aka Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1 aka ivri5678 aka Billy8 aka nadinebatra aka stadtbear aka stadtbaer aka Spark1 aka Masumian MA? aka Ma'sumian? aka Sheikhazdeh-Zavareh? aka Shark2 aka Spidermean3

BTW, it does not take a computer genius to sign up with any of the 1400 e-mail services to get a new e-mail address in order to register on On Faith with a new alias.

The new Americans

US on the pretext of homeland security went to fight the Talibans along with armies from 35 countries.
Still the mission is not accomplished. Therefore a need arise now to Americanise the talibans in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Billions of dollars are announced to change the old habbits and culture + the religion of these people.
We have to see when the war is won and the mission is declared accomplished.But how long it will take to tame and educate the New Americans, at what cost and within what time frame, does anyone got the idea?

CNNL:

Looking your posts, one finds you are not at all a respectable person.
Hiding behind the internet provides the cowards to use abusive words, however they lose their credibility.
They are given a free hand to insult by the forum managers - is this your defination of freedom?

Btw., Arminius, Spiderman knows me well enough to know that I would never post in a way that might be confusing regarding his identity.

Unlike you, I think that there is a great deal to Spiderman than we generally see. He's made that abundantly clear for all who have eyes that wish to see.

Whover is posting as Spidermean3 did the same on Susan Jacoby's thread, used language about Spiderman that HE knows I would never use about him.

I couldn't agree less with him on most issues, but he is not what you take him to be.

STADTBEAR,

Have you been to India? Do you know of the plight of the Dalit?
------------------------
Stadtbear, forgive the caps. I posted this to you earlier, and did not want it to get lost in the verbal gunk.

Farnaz

We do, of course, have CCNL (of the angora rabbits?) posting as Stadtbear, on which more, if necessary, later. Of course, Stadtbear has a human brain (and a very good one, at that), and, therefore, the Concerned angora rabbit could not keep up.

Hopefully, THE MANAGEMENT will see the Concerned Clodhopper's nonesense, which is no longer supposed to appear on this blog and remove it.

Arminius,

Are you accusing me? Because if you are, I'd recommend you use some common sense. If I were guilty of all you claim, why would I continue to post under my name?

If I were the consummate computer whiz CCNL takes me for, that is....

It is a strange brand of Christianity you profess, my friend, one which puts you in solidarity with CCNL, whom you have ever accused of "bigotry and despite."

What are you saying about yourself?

CCNL and kjohnson3,

Add Spidermean3 to your lists.

Stadtbear,

Have you been to India? Do you know of the plight of the Dalit?

Tolerant,

This is a question for anyone who knows anything about Iran.

Which book is to blame for the Islamic Revolution? Was it the Quoran who installed and supported "Shah"? And, as a result, brought us Khomeini, kept safe and secure by the French of the anything-for-oil French? Or was it another book?

And, Tolerant, let me ask you how many hundreds of millions have died in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ?

The evidence is documented, very well documented. By eye witnesses to atrocities going back to the MIddle Ages and across continents--Asia, Aftica, South America, North America, Europe, the Middle East, etc.

When one raises these matters, one is a "bigot." There are no blind as the willfully blind. No so nonliterate as those who will not read.

Books and scrolls are blameless. Those who institutionalize their discourse, use them in the name of every kind of evil are not.

Without religion, ideology would surely make do. It would, however, have one less weapon of mass destruction at its desposal.

If one must have religion, have it privately, and fund it in the same way. Keep it far, far away from politics and politicians, from governments and the citizens whom they are supposed to protect and whose rights they are supposed to represent. Keep elected officials and oil companies independent from one another and remove "BP" from American soil, where, quiet as its kept it has gotten away with murder. And, make no mistake, our "enemies" know what "BP" is and what it has done.

And, on religion, read about the Dalit, especially, the Banghi, an offense to the earth. Read and weep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit

Again, part of the evidence trail to Farnaz's alias/straw men charades:

from: kjohnson3 | February 17, 2009 10:29 AM "

"Interestingly, the proof of the multiple aliases is on display prominently in this thread. Look carefully at the posts in which her sign-on name doesn't match the alias she's writing under.
For example, in her post of Feb 10, 3:18 a.m., she signed on as the Yael alias but then wrote a "Dear Yael" message and signed it "Farnaz."

Another, more recent example: her post of Feb. 16, 9:52 a.m. She signed on as Farnaz but wrote a "Dear Farnaz" message and signed it "Yael."

I guess it's tough keeping up with the finer details of having several personas."

Farnaz's current aliases that we are aware of:

Farnaz2 aka Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1 aka ivri5678 aka Billy8 aka nadinebatra aka stadtbear aka Spark1 aka Masumian MA? aka Ma'sumian? aka Sheikhazdeh?

Tolerant,

Can you hold the NT responsible for Afghanistan and Iraq? That which our former President, born again, and born-once Vice President visited upon this world?

In the case of the former, I am speaking of he who declared one summer day, "Christ Day," who wished to see the Republican Party reborn in Jesus Christ.

Ideology has always been part of theology. The two are, at times, indistinguishable. They feed off one another, would have to, emerge within cultures, etc.

Tolerant,

The question concerns the Quoran. I honestly don't think one can blame the Quran for the blowing up of Israeli school children in buses, do you? Shooting little girls at point-blank range? Hamas MEN hiding under the skirts of women?

And, we could ask about passages concerning tolerance in the NT....that which says that unless you "believe" in Jesus you are damned forever.

I don't know that Walter meant to imply anything since I don't know Walter. But I think his question is a rational one, given the continual bashing of Quoran, not that it is overwhelmingly friendly to Jews, Christians, or "pagans" (Hindus).

However, there are passages that could be interpreted as directing tolerance.

TALIBAN MORAL EQUIVALENCE :

CCNL - Justify killing of two million Iraqis

Jai kolsa - Justify genocide of muslims in Gujarat and rape and murder of christian nuns in orissa

And all those who justify killing of innocent palestinians

Stadtbear:

Re: Verses of tolerance, etc.

There are verses that could be interpreted as advising tolerance. Walter should probably post on the panelists' threads, too, if he hasn't already done so.

Then, of course, there is Rumi, but he is a very different story, no?

Farnaz

Spidermean3,

The link was hilarious! Trouble is your moniker--although a digit different from Spidermean2's could confuse the unobservant.

Spidermean2 is, I believe, our very own Spiderman, our Spidey, who was constantly being "impersonated." It was an irritating pain in the neck for all of us. I've got a fondness for our Spidey, deep down, I'm afraid, although our politics differ, are in conflict, etc. He is a Spiderman/-mean who has read Milton, speaks/writes very articulately when he chooses to. A mystery.

Your link is fabulous!!! Discovered there are also angora cats as I looked for more sites. I'm not wildly conversant with the animal kingdom. Do you know about the Jesus Lizards?

Biggest current problem: How to give the true rabbit-al significance of CCNL's acronym.

Farnaz

PS. Why aren't CCNL's obsessive "alias" postings being removed from this and other threads?

I retract my last post, and would like the moderator to delete it. It was the imposter Spidey that posted the rabbit link, and, by damn, I know exactly where it came from.

Hi, Spidey,

I followed that link, and I'm still laughing! Thanks!

CCNL Author Profile Page :

And Farnaz's (aka Stadtbear) charades continue!!!

CCNL, here's something for you: http://images.google.com/images?q=angora+rabbit

walter-in-fallschurch wrote:

"i have asked this question elsewhere on these comment threads"

I am no Qu'ran expert. I have read a substantial part of its books, in an English translation, of who knows what quality, supplied in the Riyadh Marriot in Saudi Arabia.

I am unaware of any such verses of tolerance such as you are trying to find.

And again, I am no expert.

i have asked this question elsewhere on these comment threads, but have not recieved an answer. can anyone here help me?

are there verses you can quote from the koran (that were not later superseded by the ugly medina verses) and hadith that promote tolerance, fairness, equality, freedom of religion, self-determination etc...? (remembering that book 9 comes very near the end of the koran, chronologically speaking)

please, i would really like to know.

if there any are such "good" verses, do any of those verses survive the revision/commentary/interpretation of the hadiths without being turned into a "kill the infidel" type of sentiment ?

And CCNL continues his bizarre and lonely struggle against mental health. He appears to be winning.

And Farnaz's (aka Stadtbear) charades continue!!!

Farnaz2 wrote:
"Aside from Saudi Arabia, have you ever lived in or been to a country where religious laws were strictly enforced?"

NO! Saudi Arabia was enough for me! Homosexuality is supposedly suppressed there..but I had no problems.

I used to fly from Riyadh to Cairo with a plane full of Saudis. They are such hypocrites. We would land in Cairo, and even before going through customs, they would head in droves for the duty-free liquor stores and by lots of Johnny Walker Black, then go on to their hotels and get roaring drunk.

Farnaz2 wrote:
"

Hi Stadtbear,

I only met a few people of Russian descent when I was in Israel, quite awhile ago, and don't recall much of them.

Aside from Saudi Arabia, have you ever lived in or been to a country where religious laws were strictly enforced?

And Farnaz2 continues to talk to herself via the Stadbear aka Farnaz2 alias/straw man. See the recent posts.

For a review of the problems with Baha'i cult thinking, see http://www.gto.org/Articles/b1.htm
Farnaz apparently is a member of said cult which by the way does follow the Ten Commandments.

Farnaz must confess her violations of the Eighth commandment almost every day.

Farnaz2:

I could live in Tel Aviv very happily, so long as I didnt have to come into contact with Russian Jews. They are chronically unhappy about EVERYTHING. They complain about how much better everything was in Russia...except the don't go back there!

Hi Stadtbear,

"So tell me, is Israel a religious state in that it is governed by religious rules?"

As far as I know, only concerning divorce laws, a concession to one form of Orthodoxy made many year s ago.

When concessions have to be made, women, as in this case, are generally "conceded."

Farnaz

salero21 wrote:

"NO they should not.

Nations ought to be ruled by the brightest, most inteligent, most honest, decent, compassionate, loving and morally clean..."

Would you care to specify WHOSE definition of moral cleanliness you are advocating?

RPW3 wrote:

"That Government rules best that governs least" and still maintains socio-economic order.

And I agree with you completely. The more interesting, and complex, question is whether both conditions can exist in one nation.

Charvakan wrote:

"The problem in having a state religion is that there will always be a conflict between the constitution of the country and the state religion's holy book."

Always? I don't think this is true in England.

As the three major Abrahamic religions gradually give up their exclusive claims (We are the only ones who are saved! We are the only ones who have the true holy places! We are the only ones with the truth!) Bahaism is showing itself to be far ahead of the majority of religions in its regard for the unity of God, the unity of mankind, and the unity of religion. Why keep blasting at Bahai? They have every right to add their insights to these columns. The ancient Persians added much of what today's religions teach--Garden of Eden/Paradise, angels, the battle of good and evil, and much more.

I don't think ANY nation should be governed by religious rules.

ON the other hand, attaching the question the the situation in Pakistan is disingenuous. First, as others have noted Taliban Law and "Muslim Law" are not equivalent.

Second, the question is how did it all get to this point and on this and other threads bloggers have explained. The hands of the US are not clean.

And though we are not a "religious state" at least technically there is far too much capitulation to nonsense in political campaigns, even in political offices such as the White House.

Take, for instance, former President Bush's question to the Pope regarding HIS views on stem cell research. Stranger than fiction.

Finally, rather than focus on Pakistan, which is desperate, and which must be helped, why not focus on ENGLAND and Sharia

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ENDER2:
“THE CULTURE OF DEATH"
APR 24, 2009

IRT:
“The few good things in Islam came from Persian philosophy. All three religions have only caused wars, death and attempted to inhibit intellectual advancement and the prohibit science and the pursuit of real ethics, which cannot exist within the tribal moral structures of the Cults of Abraham."

ANS:
Limited science, prohibited science, the pursuit of real ethics, Christianity has more Universities and colleges worldwide than all the other universities combined and is the unequivocal leader in education and all sciences worldwide.

Wars and deaths have not been caused by Christianity. To the contrary, wars and death are caused by violating the moral precepts of Christianity. Moreover, the good things in Islam did not come from Persia but from the Judeo-Christian religion.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08190a.htm

“Islam holds to many of the Christian beliefs of one God who is omnipotent, omniscient, all merciful, the author of all good, in angels, devils, an immortal soul, and the resurrection, the day of judgment, and in God’s absolute decree for good and evil. The practice of Islam mirrors the Christian principles such as almsgiving, prayer, and fasting.

IRT:
"Any nation ruled by these death cults should be ostracized from civil society as they all demonize those humans that disagree with their beliefs. Peaceful societies cannot coexist in that environment successfully."

ANS;
Would the ostracizing include the secularists and humanists cults in America? Over 50,000,000 unborn have been killed by these abortion advocate cults. Worldwide some 43 million unborn die every year from abortion.

Obama, by funding abortions worldwide, has opened the gates to the death demons of Hell upon the unborn, not only in America but also to the world by funding their abortions. That also includes China. Obama voted three times to protect the abortionists who kill the children after it survives the killers botched abortions.

One child survived its abortion, and while alive crying out for help was thrown into a plastic bag while alive and dumped into the garbage where it died.

Planned Parenthood president Mary Calderone:

“Abortion is the taking of a life." Late-term fetuses are being dissected and their parts sold for huge profits. Only 2 percent of late-term fetuses have any abnormalities. They range in age from four to 7 months. Sometimes the babies are born alive, and the doctor must break their neck or beat them to death or put them to drown in the garbage with her mother's blood."

Beverly McMillan:
“On why she stopped doing abortions: ‘It got to where I couldn't stand to see the little bodies anymore." How are terrorists of radical religions any worse than abortionists?

Mother Theresa:
"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men.

It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters"

And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity

The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign." (Mother Theresa -- "Notable and Quotable," Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94, p. A14) “

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion?

As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts.”—Mother Theresa.

Any religion that is a contradiction and deterrent to human nature is a scourge on all society. Our Judeo Christian heritage defends human nature, its inalienable rights, and succors to the fulfillment of man’s destiny.

Pakistani Society Is Dangerously Delusional. It Must Either Secularize Or Implode
Pakistan’s challenges today are so extreme that they represent an existential threat to the state itself. However, after years of being fed a warped view of the world – from biased school text books, inflammatory articles in the Urdu language press, and fiery Friday mosque sermons – many Pakistanis are living in denial. Pakistani society has become dangerously delusional.
http://dailyexception.com/2009/03/24/pakistani-society-is-dangeroulsy-delusional-it-must-either-secularize-or-implode/

It is a difficult question to answer for me, as I have no desire to offend.

I was raised in the strict Jeffersonian tradition of American secularism by parents descended from British colonialists and Native American Iroquoians -- all who have stressed their love and admiration for Thomas Jefferson for generations of my family -- much more so than Washington or Lincoln, for example.

Thus, the very term "religion" for me is synonymous with the term "evil" or "deceitful" or "superstitious".

Since my ancestors all hail from the New England states, where for a time people who were somehow believed to be 'witches and demons' were burned alive by religious fanatics, their reverence for Jefferson's secularist philosophy seems eminently understandable as Americans.

To this day, when I meet someone who claims to be "religious" I simply cannot help but to hold that person in contempt as perhaps untrustworthy or too narrow-minded or too superstitious for me to have anything in common with them. My reaction is not one of arrogance, it is almost like fear -- or as if such people have a disease that I don't want to catch.

Perhaps it is also because there is simply no room for any sort of logical argument or debate when someone invokes 'god' into a discussion, and, for me, rather than fight and argue against faith in an invisible omnipotent being, I just want to leave.

Well, it's the 'leaving' part I don't want to lose -- I don't want to lose the freedom and legal protection to have religion and it's horrors kept away from me and my family.

Somewhere in this wonderful country, there must be a place for everyone, as Jefferson noted, and as he also noted and framed within our founding documents, there must be, without prejudice, freedom from religion.

.

One should clearly differentiate between Islamic Law and the law which Taliban want to impose in the name of Islam. Islam is a very moderate religion which allows non-muslims freedom to practice their belief, freedom of women with equal rights and advocate education to both men and women. It established social justice and advocates human rights as all human are equal with no discrimination on the basis of caste, color, or wealth. In Islam superior is only one who is pious, humble, help other human beings and work for the humanity and lives honestly.
On the other hand 'Talibans' are a group of racist, radical and uncivilized and barbarians who are not only using but infact exploiting the name of islam for their personal gain. Mostly among them are criminals and involve in drugs and other crimes. Otherwise one muslim cannot think of destroying religious places of any other religion and these are destroying own mosques, in islam suicide is prohibited and they are going for suicide bombing which is totally against islam. They are using the name of islam just to mask themselves and cover up their criminal activities. The present Pakistan's so-called democratic government and independent media has no insight what they are dealing or facing with. Unfortunately the present government is full of corrupt mafia whose main target is to make money in the name of democracy. The country has been under one dynasty's rule, what kind of democracy it is that the leadership has been passed from wife (Benazir) to husband (president Zardari) and then would be passed to son (Bilawal). The most corrupt leader in the history of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, was given an award for human rights by the UNO, neglecting the fact the during her premiership in 1990s she killed thousands of civilian and her opposition political party's worker with any trial and they using police force.
The blunder what west US and UK nad allies have done in the past is to protect the coorupt leadership of 3rd world countries including Pakistan. These looters have done economic damage to the poor counrty like Pakistan and made billions of dollars and transferred it to US or other western country banks and have been protected. Th is has created the hatred among the ordinary people against the western countries and carzy people like Taliban exploit those feelings/ Sitting in Washington giving analysis on CNN and Fox News is different than the ground facts in the 3rd world.
the root cause of trouble is injustice to the people of these poor contries where corrupt mafia is ruling in the form of democracy. Country like Pakistan doesnot deserve democracy because the 70 % of popultaion lives in villages where they are govern by feudal lords with no right to vote freely, they are told and forced to vote to the powerful feudal lords including Benazir's family and alike.
The only way US can overcome this situation and clear the Talibans danger is to change its policy to protect and promote corrupt leaderships of 3rd world countries. In case of Pakistan the only solution is to let army take over the country and be allowed to ruthlessly clean the taliban fact and corrupt beuracracy and politics, and in that west should provide full support to the government and get the money back into Pakistan's bank from other countries that has been transferred by the corrupt leaders like Benazir and Nawaz Sharif. Otherwise the scenario would be more troublesome as taliban factor is growing the present political leadership and government in Paksitan is incapable of handling it.

The historical odds are against them having what we would call a good government. Some of the nastiest governments in the history of our world have been religious; many have just been unpleasant, and only a few have been enlightened.

What's missing in this conversation is: good government is not important to most of those who lead religiously governed countries; a properly religious populace is all-important. Religious governments consider themselves to be Lawful Good, and they will kill and worse to whip their populaces into line. The Salem Puritans are a good example of that.

Still, the way we have screwed over Pakistan (from their point of view), i can understand why many want something other than what we have. And still, i deplore having another religious government --- Pakistan or any other.

Again, a sincere apology by Farnaz (Masumian) and a promise to stop using aliases (Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1 aka ivri5678 aka Billy8 aka
nadinebatra) and straw men (Stadtbear and Spark1) in the future would be a great first step in giving any credence to said Farnaz/Ms. Masumian's comments in the future.

"Should any nation be governed by religious rules or authorities?"
Uhhhh. Excuse me, but we are governed by religious rules. Don't believe me? Where would Obama be if he were a Muslim, or, worse still, an ATHEIST?
Face it, folks, one has to pass the religious test in order to be a representative in our society. Don't believe me? How many Senators and Representatives in State and Federal offices are confessed non-believers? Can't come up with a number? I'll give it to you: ZERO.
One either has to be a closet atheist or outright lie about his religious beliefs in order to work in government as a representative of "the people".
For all intents and purposes, we are living in a religious fiefdom and if one doesn't toe the line of the CORRECT religion, one has about as much chance of becoming president as Sarah Palin has in becoming intelligent and articulate.

We need to recognize the historical & ongoing value of the U.S. Constitutional seperation of church & state along w/ freedom religion & no religious test for office...
Our historical rejection of theocratic governments has enabled people to worship or not worship God as they choose w/out officially supported coercion or intimidation...which has often happened in nations w/ state religions

Spark1,

On Susan Jacoby's thread, you write:

"I myself say nothing, I am a person with very little knowledge."

Obviously, you are being modest since you quote Iqbal!

Let me try to explain further. First, technically, there are few, if any, true theocracies in the world. What there are are religious states.

If you make a moral argument, if one reads the arguments of Iqbal, et al, then the reply will be to cite existing religious states, none of which is desirable from a moral perspective.

They never have been, regardless of the religion in question. You could then say that we've never really had a truly religious state, one that reflects all the teachings of this or that religion, etc. Even if all the teachings were acceptable, and they are not, the argument would fail.

Consider an analogous argument, that communism is a desirable form of government. Opponents would point to those regimes that have fallen, those that still exist to demonstrate the error of the assertion. Advocates would argue that we've never had a "true communist" government.

Do you see what I mean?

Farnaz

SALLY QUINN, JOHN MEACHAM, DAVID WATERS:

Remove please. Hasn't this gone on for long enough? Are you going to monitor CCNL's postings? How much more damage are you going to permit him to do this professor whom I've never met, who has asked that this cease and desist in her own posting?

CCNL Author Profile Page :

Again, it is obvious that Farnaz2 Masumian will not stop her use of straw men and aliases (e.g. Spark1). She is one delusional woman who thinks she can make her Baha'i "faith" more important than it really is by promoting various aspects of it without actually identifying it as such.

Ms. Farnaz2 Masumian references related to the Baha'i cult: (from a search using "Phantom Islamic Shadow groups/Google/Facebook.

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-bahai&tid=556

http://bahai-library.com/file.php?file=masumian_mysticism_bahai

April 24, 2009 6:49 AM | Report Offensive Comment

Remove please:

CCNL Author Profile Page :

Again, it is obvious that Farnaz2 Masumian will not stop her use of straw men and aliases (e.g. Spark1). She is one delusional woman who thinks she can make her Baha'i "faith" more important than it really is by promoting various aspects of it without actually identifying it as such.

Ms. Farnaz2 Masumian references related to the Baha'i cult: (from a search using "Phantom Islamic Shadow groups/Google/Facebook.

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-bahai&tid=556

http://bahai-library.com/file.php?file=masumian_mysticism_bahai

April 24, 2009 6:49 AM | Report Offensive Comment

The belief that we are our brothers keepers is ruining the U.S. In the name of secularism Americans of all faiths or none are imposed on more and more to care for the anything goes lifestyle of a growing number of fellow residents. It's not a question of whether religion should govern but how much power should be assumed by, or granted to anyone who governs. Government should leave to the people as much self-determination as is pratical. Determining where to draw that line should dominate political discussion. The more freedom is maintained the less concern it is who, or what governs. Bottom line is that the ideology of personal responsibilty should prevail lest any uncontrolable ideology rule.

Most basic rules are derived from religious theology. The entire Bush campaign revolved around doing god's work, the right thing, imposing American psuedo-christian values in the world. America is ruled by religion. It's may be written that religion shall not rule our state, but the flaw in that statement should be obvious. America is recognized as the most religious state of the industrialized nations. Maybe, we don't use the bible to enforce the laws, but a look into any "hot debate," especially during an election, we can see we use it to create laws.

Religions should not rule nations but likewise nations should not govern or rule religions

MAYBE YES.

If the country's population decides they want it, or if it's part of their tradition/history, there's no reason the US norm of church-state separation should be imposed on them. It's not one-size-fits-all.

It's weird that some posters sound like they view the US set up as a dogma of representative democracy. It's not. It's just how it is here. It's not inherently superior or inferior.

As with other highly divisive political questions, where you stand depends on where you sit. In U.S. Constitutional law, there is a wall of separation between church and state. For most schools of Islamic fundamentalism, however, there can be no such separation because religious law is the same as secular law. Most societies (including many European societies and the so-called paleo-conservative view of U.S. society) fall somewhere in the middle. The prospect of trying to bridge this gap seems very daunting. Indeed, those in the United States who appear to be most opposed to Islamic fundamentalism also appear to be those who are the least convinced that the wall of separation between church and state should be viewed as absolute under U.S. Constitutional law. On the other hand, societies that have attempted to mandate a government-enforced rejection of religion altogether have appeared (not surprising, I suppose) to lose their souls in the attempt. As a general observation, however, the historical track record of religions as administrators of government is unsatisfactory. The problem may relate to an essential inability of human beings competently to take on the role of representing the higher power to other human beings. Thus, a system that does not call upon leaders to represent the higher power is more likely to avoid falling prey to this fundamental human inability than is a system that does call upon its leaders to assume the role of representatives of the higher power. However, this point of view is likely to be controversial (and potentially even destabilizing if believed, at least in some arenas) when its implications are fully considered and understood.

In the US, we are already constrained by religion in many ways which are contrary to public policy. In many regions of the country, it is difficult to have instruction or discussions in public schools about birth control, evolution, and other important topics- because of religious zealots on the Christian right, and it is difficult to have discussion about topics like homosexuality or drug use because of both religious zealotry on the right and political correctness on the left. We're not as bad off as the Taliban, but we're worse off on some aspects of public education than we were 35 years ago.

"That Government rules best that governs least" and still maintains socio-economic order.

How would I respond? With a big fat missile from a Predator drone, right up the imam's arse. Hopefully, it would fry those around him as well.

MightySparrow writes: [[AKAFIR said: "Islam claims to be a complete code of life, while so does capitalism, with democracy as its political manifestation."]]

I did not say that. The Pakistani Columnist at the link I gave said that. You are correct that he is wrong about capitalism. It is informative to read and understand how "educated" and moderate muslims treat the supremacist ideology of the Quran.

This is a very easy question to answer. Just look at the results of the Bush presidency.

Whether you like it or not, religions rule all nations.

A nations culture arises from its previous worship of the devine.

You may deny that now, in the 21st century, but we are nonetheless all ideas of governance and organization of society are the patrimony of previous religious ideals.

Duh. Of course not.

No. Religions should not rule nations. In the first place, most nations have some diversity of religion, even if it's the same religion, such as Islam in Iraq; there are Shi'ites and Sunni Muslims in Iraq. Which one is supposed to be heading the government.

The second place: what happens when a religion sharply turns fanatical. I don't need to get into what is happening in Afghanistan to point out the pitfalls of letting religion rule the country. But this includes Israel, too, turning sharply to the right, to the marginalization of the 20% Muslim population.

In the U.S. people keep claiming that the U.S. is a Christian nation, but that ignores the religious diversity in the U.S. and it ignores common sense.

The Constitution is a secular document specifying a separation of church and state. It has served us well against those who would turn the nation into a fanatical regime and ban evolution, curtail women's rights and marginalize those of minority religions and those with no religion at all.

Secular nations tend to be more peaceful. Look at Norway and Sweden.

Who really wants to bring back the days of a ruling clergy? Who wants to be the one under their jackboot.

The danger of people who want to bring religion into the ruling class is that they assume they themselves will not be under that jackboot.

Too many times they end up right there.

Look what happened in Tudorian times under King Henry VIII. The architects of the Reformation, too often ended up burnt at the stake.

Do we want that hell again?

AKAFIR said: "Islam claims to be a complete code of life, while so does capitalism, with democracy as its political manifestation."
-------------------

AKAFIR is incorrect about capitalism. Capitalism is a fairly general term describing an economic system-- it makes no claim to being a "complete code of life." That is nonsense. Where is there a book about Capitalism that is like the capitalist "Bible," addressing how we should act in all areas of our life, or addressing our spiritual beliefs? There are capitalists of all religions and none.

Should Religions Rule Nations?
------------------

Lord, I hope not...

I don't believe that having religion integrated into government is a good idea. It may seem good to people (especially followers) but it generally won't work.

I religion and government as 2 different and powerful entities. I believe government was established by God to promote justice and restrain evil. All societies need this no matter what their religious beliefs.

Religions actually allow us to know God, but there are so many differences across societies. Governments become innefective when they enforce and promote specific religious practices, so people feel obligated to follow government religion.

I think the main flaw in this close relationship is that there is too much power within a small group. Government and religion are supposed to watch each other, not be together. If you look at some of the corrupt governments over the ages you see a lot of time they used each other for power. This is why the US was founded on the principle that they should remain separate.

Religion will always affect government, especially democracy. We can vote our values, and that will always involve religious values. That is were most people get their convictions. But we must understand that government and religion work best when they are apart and can do their function apart from other responsibility.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2: “Continuing, the Romans or Greeks had nothing comparable to the Beatitudes or Corporeal Works of Mercy that form the central personification of all Christianity”
The Essenes apparently knew about them, or at least something very, very similar before Jesus was born.
“Even Aristotle’s God was concerned only about himself.”
Revelation 4:11, “Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.” Colossians 1:16: “All things were created by Him and for Him.”
“The Greeks and Romans did influence the Jewish culture, but it did not influence their religion; it only helped them explain it.”
We’re going to need some verification on this. What evidence is there?

manyshyts

your remarks about pakistan is baseless
explode what? how ? all you said is foolish and your ref site is a propaganda blog.

Religions should only rule countries if our goal is to return humankind to the twelfth century. Otherwise, no. Next question.

RE: 3 for 10 ...

>> Batting 300% is a pretty good avgerage in baseball but since the 3 laws that are found in the commandments actually predate the commandments by thousands of years, none of our laws are based on the commandments. So the commandments are 0 for 10! (Not a very good avg. in baseball either).

-------------------------------

"Why can't religion see that by creating secular governments they will not be told what to believe themselves, and that an open environment is created for all beliefs (no matter how ungrounded in truth)?"

>> Because they all think they have the million dollar case (and will somehow be able to legislate their particular religious dogma above all others). Fools just can't resist fools gold!

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ENDER2:
"JUDEO-CHRISTIAN CULTURE AND GREEK/ROMAN CULTURE"
APR 24, 2009

IRT:
“Almost everything good in Judeo/Christian culture CAME FROM GRECO/ROMAN PHILOSOPHY AND LAW.”

ANS:
If I am mistaken, please enlighten me, but I don’t think the Greeks and Romans were around before Adam and Eve. And I don’t think the Greeks told Adam who God is. The Greek philosophers had a major problem figuring out who was God. Scripture had already solved that problem for the Jews. Even Aristotle, who came close to solving the problem didn’t get it quite right.

Both Greeks and Romans had multiple gods but the Jews were monotheistic, as was Aristotle’s Prime Mover. The Greeks and Romans never changed that belief. Also, Aristotle proves the impossibility of many Gods and confirms the Scriptures from reason, but that was revealed to the Jews by God before Aristotle ever existed.

The Jews who inhabited Egypt used the Greek philosophers because it helped explain their religion and make it more understandable. The Greeks and Romans did influence the Jewish culture, but it did not influence their religion; it only helped them explain it.

“Although all of these conquerors brought about changes to the land and its inhabitants, perhaps the most profound change came about with the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 BCE. The culture of the Ancient Near East, which had looked inward and eastward for millennia, now began to look outward and westward. The language of government, commerce, and culture became Greek, and would remain Greek throughout the Roman period.”—Journal of Religion:

http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/2004Symposium/Crawford.htm

“Messianism formed an important component of religious belief among all the groups in this period. The expectation of a messiah, an anointed scion of the Davidic royal house, took on strong eschatological overtones in the Greco-Roman period. This is in reaction to the political oppression suffered under the Greeks and the Romans, and in some cases to the takeover of the temple and the high priesthood by those deemed unworthy to control it.”—(Ibid)

Both Jews and Catholics in the beginnings of Christianity were more influenced by Plato than Aristotle. Aristotle's Prime Mover came close to the Christian God, but not quite. Aristotle didn’t have God create the Universe; he believed God and the Universe were co-existent and eternal, contrary to Scripture. Plato didn’t think the world was even real; the Earth was a reflection of a real world somewhere else. That's not a Christian concept.

Moreover the Greek and Roman gods, and even the Aristotelian God were impervious to God’s love for man. Even Aristotle’s God was concerned only about himself.

Further, the Greeks and Romans had Gods that were multiple and human like. However, the God of the Jews was supernatural, watched over Jews constantly, and interceded in their affairs visibly and physically. The Jew's God was judicious, merciful, and constantly beneficent, while at times violent in his discipline.

In addition, God gave Moses the “Ten Commandments” long before the Jews were under Roman rule. The Commandments differed from all other pseudo attempts that are said to replicate them before the time of the Jews. The Commandments major difference from the pagan, Romans. Greeks and contemporaries of the age, was the dictates of the first three Commandments that pertained to God.

Continuing, the Romans or Greeks had nothing comparable to the Beatitudes or Corporeal Works of Mercy that form the central personification of all Christianity.

Actually, gladerunner, only 3 of the 10 commandments are codified into law, which IMHO is a pretty bad endorsement by society. Those three are the ones dictated by common sense, rather than just by the mortal(s) who wrote the original 10.

The problem with most religions running countries is that they seem to regard their own success as a zero-sum game: they win through whatever means, and all of the other thousands of religions lose.

Why can't religion see that by creating secular governments they will not be told what to believe themselves, and that an open environment is created for all beliefs (no matter how ungrounded in truth)?

To quote some writer on the show "House":

"If I could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."

Northwest Pakistan is NOT ruled by Islamic clerics, the area is ruled by Wahhabi Taliban who are known extremists, so therefore the obvious answer to the question is No. Iran ruled by the Ayatollahs? Hell yeah! just look at the peace and stability in Iran and see why.

As a devout Christian and as an American who has served in our military and seen the ravages inflicted by despots in the name of religion(s)overseas, my answer to the question is a resounding NO. We have no business in mixing religion with our politics or affairs of our state.

But, unfortunately, we have lost our moral compass in upholding secularism as the essential cornerstone of our democracy by using our tax-dollars to support faith-based initiatives (started by Dubya and now expanded shamelessly by Obama) not only in the US but thro USAID even overseas. That saps and emasculates our arguments against the funding of Wahabi institutions by Saudis and others in non-Muslim countries like India, Thailand, Philippines, Myanmar, Fiji, South Africa etc.

Besides, the imposition of sharia by Islamic Republics to the detriment of their minorities cannot be opposed or criticized any more by us, as long as we maintain that we are a Christian nation or that we are Judeo-Christian nation. I was stunned when I heard some rabble-rousers here castigate Obama for saying while he was overseas in one of his speeches, that we are not a Christian Nation. That is a fact. And, yet our Christian and Jewish fundamentalists bristled at Obama's bold and honest assertion, albeit, it was delivered to curry favor with his Islamic audience in Turkey.

However, I am deeply disappointed by Obama's move to strengthen the faith-based initiatives office. In most controversial issues where a true leader shows his or her courage of his/her conviction, Obama seems to want it both ways. That I am afraid will be his undoing.

Obama should have scrapped the faith-based initiatives office since a secular and democratic nation such as ours should not be in the business of tearing down the wall of separation of church and state that our founding fathers so wisely constructed for us and for other nations to emulate. Now, we have lost that advantage. And, we can no longer criticize the Jehadis for imposing sharia or denying the basic human rights to those that do not follow Islamic fundamentalism. The Muslim emirates under the leadership of the Saudis, have created in countries like Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, India etc religious frictions and even violent clashes between Muslims and Hindus, Budhhists, Sikhs etc., by exporting their brand of proselytizing and militant Islam into other non-Islamic countries.

Our export of Christian fundamentalism overseas thro our proselytizing Christian NGOS funded by our tax dollars has stripped us of our moral rights to chide Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh fundamentalists when they get involved in violence and mayhem against minorities within their respective communities. This is no different from our unfortunate involvement with torture measures against our POWs and enemy combatants and our consequent loss of our moral standing overseas.

Unfortunately, our faith-based Christian NGOS and their operations are perceived by the developing countries as mere extensions of our country's political instruments to expand our spheres of influence among the natives of those countries by making them disaffected against the native and majority faiths and ruling majorities of those countries.

Hindu fundamentalists are whipping up their anger and hostility against Christian evangelists and Islamic preachers in India. A similar effect is seen in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Thailand against both Christianity and Islam, undertaken by Buddhist fundamentalists.

We saw the forced exodus of Iraqi Christians who lived in total amity with their Muslim brothers and sisters for nearly two thousand years, until we took over that country and allowed our evangelists and NGOs to operate in that country. That triggered the Shia and Sunni Mullahs to create hell for the Iraqi and Syrian Christians who were living with them until our arrival there, without any problem. Now, there are over 600,000 Christian refugees languishing outside Iraq.

Hindu, Buddhist,and Sikh fundamentalists in India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, resent US's financing of faith-based Christian NGOs thro our USAID. We must stop this activity at least overseas, if we want to regain our moral credibility as a secular nation.

In this new Century, there should be no place for theocracies. And, I keep hoping that the United Nations will take a bold step and demand that theocracies become secular democracies if they want full membership in that august body. Until they discard their theocratic mantles, theocracies should only be accorded a secondary status such as an Associate Membership.

The UN should become like the European Union by setting up minimum standards for becoming a full member, the first of which should be the secularization and embrace of democracy followed by the full respect for human rights by conferring religious freedom to all citizens without any involvement by the state to favor one religion over another. Next, every nation should have the same sets of laws (both civil and criminal) for all its citizens.

Unfortunately, ours (US) was (I hope still is) a secular nation which was founded on the basis of strict separation of church and state. But it has been foundering during the last decade by becoming an increasingly "christian fundamentalist" nation and worse still using our tax dollars to export Christianity thro Christian NGOs both domestically and overseas.

I realize that Obama has opened up the faith-based initiatives to all faiths, but it has so far been a window-dressing with little or no real funding support given to non-Christian NGOs or religious institutions. Even,if that is reversed, I believe that our government has no business in maintaining faith-based programs if we want to regain our status as a true secular country in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Pakistani Society Is Dangerously Delusional. It Must Either Secularize Or Implode
www.dailyexception.com

Pakistan’s challenges today are so extreme that they represent an existential threat to the state itself. However, after years of being fed a warped view of the world – from biased school text books, inflammatory articles in the Urdu language press, and fiery Friday mosque sermons – many Pakistanis are living in denial. Pakistani society has become dangerously delusional.
http://dailyexception.com/2009/03/24/pakistani-society-is-dangeroulsy-delusional-it-must-either-secularize-or-implode/

I don't grasp what is so scary about the idea of one unified world. I think the case can be made that nationalism has killed and maimed and oppressed many more people than any religion. I say, leave everyone else alone as far as their spiritual beliefs. But work toward a day when nations will be like neighborhoods are today, parts of a greater whole with their own character and traditions. Wouldn't heaven have come to earth if everyone was fed and clothed and educated and had shelter, medical care and clean water? We would have the ability to do that, if we could get past the barriers of nationalism, selfishness, and ego.

No the Church should not rule the government. I am a christian and i also believe that the government should not rule the church, it's doctrine or polity.

No. Institutions based on faith and belief should rule nothing except their own organizational affairs, just like the Elks or Masons. They should be able to determine their liturgies and articles of faith required for membership; they should have no power over non-believers or believers of other faiths. There is as much anecdotal first person evidence, actually more, to support belief in UFOs or Big Foot as there is for all the major religions. Scripture written and attested to by believers is not impartial evidence, and even if based on actual events, is not fact itself. Belief is just opinion.

The question; Should a state be ruled by religion? could be substituted by the question; Should insanity be allowed to rule? Rationalism and modernity are less than 300 years old. Modern state is still struggling for survival in many cases. The ethical and compassionate story of modern man is based on reason and experience. It should not be based on some revelations, more than a thousand years ago.

I have a very simple answer for that.

"HELL NO".

Again, it is obvious that Farnaz2 Masumian will not stop her use of straw men and aliases (e.g. Spark1). She is one delusional woman who thinks she can make her Baha'i "faith" more important than it really is by promoting various aspects of it without actually identifying it as such.

Ms. Farnaz2 Masumian references related to the Baha'i cult: (from a search using "Phantom Islamic Shadow groups/Google/Facebook.

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-bahai&tid=556

http://bahai-library.com/file.php?file=masumian_mysticism_bahai

Good point Rick. Dan

AKafir

Why not take out a newspaper on Pakistan.

Kafir

You know kafir means, one damn to hell, if so, why you have so much pain for muslim pakistan?
Such news which you are refering to, can be read in any newspaper - what is the logic to put them on a discussion forum.

Minorities of Pakistan are about to be butchered. Many in them will convert to save their lives in the impending Taliban rule. But their daughters and wives will pay the most price as they will be abducted in much larger numbers than they have been in the last 20 or so years, and they will be enslaved and used as sex slaves ... all of course all very Islamic according to the orthodoxy of Islam.
*****************************************
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\04\24\story_24-4-2009_pg3_1

Sarjani Town in Karachi was a scene of violence Wednesday. This is worrisome because the target there was the Christian community, Pakistan’s largest minority population. Confrontation between the Christians and the Pashtuns took place after the town walls were splashed with graffiti asking the Christians to embrace Islam or give jiziya. A church wall carried pro-Taliban slogans such as “Taliban zindabad”, “Islam zindabad”, “Christians Islam qabool karo”, etc.

Understandably, many scared Christians came out of their homes and protested, chanting counter-slogans like “Taliban murdabad”, “ANP murdabad” and “Pashtun murdabad”. They also set ablaze some shops belonging to the Pashtuns after which there was an exchange of fire, wounding one Pashtun and four Christians.

All this was expected to happen. It is a miracle that politicians never accept that they are wrong when they falsify the situation on the ground. Karachi is the most glaring example. What has happened in Sarjani Town was anticipated by Lawrence John Saldanha, Archbishop of Lahore and President Pakistan Catholic Bishops Conference, who sent a number of letters to the leaders of the country on April 16, 2009. He also wrote to the Prime Minister and the President of Pakistan:

“As the killing machine of terror in the name of religion continues with impunity, the small communities of Hindus, Sikhs and Christians in the NWFP are forced into unemployment, intimidation and migration. Statues of Buddha were mutilated, whereas St Mary’s School, Convent, and Chapel at Sangota (Swat) were bombed to the ground. The Don Bosco School at Bannu has also been the target of bombing. Christian, Hindu and Sikh families in Dara Adam Khel in 2008 and recently Non-Muslims in Orakzai Agency have been forced to evacuate as jiziya was imposed on them by the Taliban”.
....
Can the government and the army save the state of Pakistan? *

Two columns in a Pakistani newspaper today that essentially tell the entire story of the situation in Pakistan. Pakistani Army will not fight the Taliban, and the Taliban are winning the battle of defining Islam for the people who want Islam. The people may not want Taliban's Islam but they will accept that before they will accept the Kufr of the elite. As the elite of Shah of Iran ran in 1979, and the Iranians have tasted the flavor of the Islam of the Mullah, so will the elite of Pakistan run. They will run to USA, Canada, UK, Australia, and other Kafir countries. USA better start thinking about how to deal with a Pakistan under Taliban rule.
*************************************************************************

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/24-Apr-2009/Jinnah-or-the-Taliban/1

The army tried to contain the Taliban insurgency but was unsuccessful. I asked a friend why this happened. He mentioned three factors that could be responsible. Firstly, there seem to be many in the army who are taken in by the pseudo-religious talk of the militants, thinking they are the warriors of Islam, and have no desire to fight them.

Secondly, Pathan soldiers may be feeling affinity with the Pakhtun militants. Finally, and importantly, the army has gone soft due to many decades of involvement in the country's politics during periods of martial law, and due to the interest of its officers in acquiring plots at throw-away prices in each of its huge housing societies. It may therefore not have had the stomach for a fight against trained and battle-hardened guerrilla fighters.

This feeling is greatly strengthened by the facts narrated by the people from Swat that most schools have been blown up, and most beheadings taken place during curfew: the Swatis strongly suspected that there existed a tacit understanding between the armed forces and the Taliban!

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/24-Apr-2009/The-Swat-controversy

Another aspect of orthodoxy is the refusal to accept democracy as an Islamic system. As already explained, this was part of the modernising project, and democracy really has no place in Islam. Islam does not accept the undoubtedly democratic right of an assembly to make laws that, let alone not according with Islam, are in contradiction to it. Islam claims to be a complete code of life, while so does capitalism, with democracy as its political manifestation.

Therefore, to expect the TNSM cadres to be satisfied with what they have got, and not to regard the whole Swat experience as a victory for their brand of orthodoxy, and, more important, not to want to spread it to the rest of the country, would be crying for the moon. At the same time, those in government might want to think whether the USA regards Swat as a defeat just as much as the Taliban regard it as a victory.

To expect the rest of the country to fall to them is to accept their critique, particularly of the justice system - not just that it is slow and expensive, but not Islamic in the bargain. However, there is enough truth in their sayings to appeal to the orthodox. The presence of these followers of orthodoxy does not mesh well with the claims of those who claim that Pakistan is not an orthodox land, but one of people whose Islam makes them primarily qualified to be part of the capitalist experiment.

It's funny how all the fundamentalists have sat this question out.

Good essay Daniel12. You pose two worlds: (1) Religion (Islam) subdues the nation states to rise above them…and rules the entire world sans nation states; and (2) the nation states emerge from religions and develop further in a secular manner sans religion.

I am pulling for a third world, in which nation states dissolve into a single world community sans religion which continues to evolve in a secular manner influenced only by science and reason.

Should religions rule nations?

Simply going by monotheistic religions such as Islam and Christianity and the eastern religion Buddhism, we can evidently see that these religions have as their project supranationality. The goal of such religions as these is not just ruling nations but really not having nations with a chance to breathe at all. In other words ideally these religions would have liked to have lived before any definite nationalistic structure within the world and to have spread preventing nationalistic structures from existing at all.

What we call nations, for all their elevation of said religions, are against said religions. Which is to say--again--they are against said religions even if having evidently propped up religions in many cases and enabled their spread. Over the short view we have clear tension between nations and religions and no clear resolution and compromise or an overcoming of the other either way. But the long view tells a different story. The long view demonstrates a clear rise of what we call nations, and these nations more and more project themselves out of whatever religious world as if islands projecting out of the sea. In other words religions subside as nations increase in power--and especially do religions subside as these nations move in the spirit of the scientific revolution.

In the West and the Far East although religions such as Christianity and Buddhism still have a powerful influence we can see that if there must be a supranational movement that these nations conceive of a movement which is a distinct advance over religions and can be conceived as, well, as we have already had a chance to see: United Nations. The measure of a nation today has little to do with its religious impulses and much more to do with whether it can fit in with other nations and advance national interests in a supranational sense which is not the elevation of any one religion over all nations.

And the great failure of a world such as the Islamic, and why it would conflict with the West or Far East is that it is not a world so much composed of nations projecting out of and beyond Islam like firm islands out of the ocean as a world in which nations are like dunes of sand shifting this way and that and always dominated by Islam. The fact is the West and the Far East cannot help but conflict with the Islamic world. The West and Far East believe in nations above religious influence, and if there must be a supranational movement it must not be religious but rather economic and politic.

But then again even in the West we have a problem with religion threatening to spread over nations, be superior to politics, and if conceding to nations conceding only in the sense of infiltrating said nations and using them as a platform by which to spread the religion of choice. For example, these days in America we have much discussion concerning whether religion (read Christianity) is dying out. And one of the favorite arguments on the religious side is that religion is above politics and not only should not enter politics but does not need politics to survive. We can see at once the peculiar arrogance of religion in this statement in the sense that religion is firmly considered above politics--that if there is a supranational movement it will not be anything other than religious,--and in fact religion has been above politics and nations all along.

Worse: we can see at once what a lie it is that religion will be removed from politics, not seek to wield influence through politics. Two choices are open to religions seeking to be decisively supranational: they can either have so much confidence that they do not consider themselves at all limited and expect that they will not only spread beyond nations but that they are the only supranational answer or they can wake up to the fact before their eyes that religions are losing power more and more each day and that a single religion would come to dominate all nations is extremely remote--therefore to survive at all politics must be entered with a vengeance.

So the battle lines are clearly drawn: we have the religious impulse which seeks to suck nations down to itself as if the ocean sucking down islands, and on the other side we have the nationalistic impulse being driven more and more by science and conceiving that if a world must exist which has no nations it will be a world composed of nations upthrusting like islands out of the sea and bridging their differences through the modern scientific, economic and political outlook. Does it at all have to be stated that it looks more and more like religion is subsiding wherever we look? In fact things are quite comical: we have for example certain Westerners saying religion is above politics but in the same movement being totally against the spread of any other religion--especially Islam--in a supranational movement. It seems each religion more and more is coming to be limited in the political arena and limiting any other religion which wants to spread beyond
nations whether by political or blessed means such as simply spreading by word and not by any political movement.

There remains little more to be said except that of course religions should not rule nations. Just reflect for a moment on our world today--and take just two of the religions with supranational pretensions: Islam and Christianity. What really would occur if on both sides a supranational attempt was made? Would not nations of either world (Christian, Islamic) find themselves sucked into something of a cyclone against another cyclone? Or better put, would we not have a Western hurricane against an Eastern cyclone when really both methods are not only not much different but are not cures and are rather just bad weather conditions? So the battle lines are drawn: religion seeking to drag nations into its orbit and use them to spread, eventually overcoming them, and nations projecting out of religion and imagining a supranational world beyond religion. The West and Far East are more and more the latter. Islam is clearly something of the former. And needless to
say, the former resents the latter. And the latter it seems just goes on its way.

Hi, Thomas Baum,

You wrote "Actually, there is only one Law and that Law is God, Who Is a Being of Pure Love, so the Law Is Love."

And once again you get it right, when so many others are wrong. Thank you, and God bless!

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

You wrote, "Because of Adam, man kind of lost his way, and God sent a Redeemer to establish a Church that would not teach errors and contradictions of his laws."

Actually, there is only one Law and that Law is God, Who Is a Being of Pure Love, so the Law Is Love.

The "Church" is part of God's Plan Which God has had since before creation and the "mission" of the Church is that "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

In reply to alphabet soup boy.

Almost everything good in Judeo/Christian culture CAME FROM GRECO/ROMAN PHILOSOPHY AND LAW. The few good things in Islam came from Persian philosophy. All three religions have only caused wars, death and attempted to inhibit intellectual advancement and the prohibit science and the pursuit of real ethics, which cannot exist within the tribal moral structures of the Cults of Abraham.

Any nation ruled by these death cults should be ostracised from civil society as they all demonize those humans that disagree with their beliefs. Peaceful societies cannot coexist in that environment successfully.

CCNL is ludicrously wrong when he says that religion will begin to disappear in ten years. In fact it will take at least twelve years.

The question: Should nations be ruled by citizens who exhibit the terminal gullibility of believing in the existence and influence of supernatural beings?
The answer: The answer lies in the question itself.

Reality and Truth 101:

Buddha suffered from OCD with here a reincarnation, there a reincarnation, everywhere a reincarnation, 24/7!!!

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2 “If the Commandments are “STRICTLY” a religious concept then why are there laws against murder, lying, and stealing in Civil Law? If you are correct, then to make such prohibitive laws is to violate the Constitution’s freedom of religion by forcing all people to obey religious precepts.”

You reply, yet you don’t read.
Laws against murder, theft etc. predate the ten commandments. They also exist in virtually all cultures in the world, including non Judeo-Christian cultures.
The Old Testament mentions oxen too, but I don’t think they exist/existed only because the bible says they do. That the bible says ’do not kill’ does not mean it was acceptable behavior in any society up to that point. If anything this is a secular concept co-opted by the religions.

“God sent a Redeemer to establish a Church that would not teach errors and contradictions of his laws.”
Which church is this? Which church has not taught errors?

“Truth does not depend on belief.”
Sure it does. All the religions in the world claim ‘the truth’ when in fact they ALL seriously misuse that word. Merely claiming something is an avacado hardly makes it and avacado. Merely claiming something is 'the truth' does not make it so either.

“The Church’s moral laws are universal because all men have the same nature”
I’ve challenged this already, yet you refuse to address it. All men do not have the same ‘nature’. They share some common tendencies at best. If all men have the same nature, then why do we need to teach any of them anything?

“God established a Church that is infallible”
Where exactly is this infallible church?

“Those who defy Her precepts bear bad fruit. Hence, Communism, Fascism, Animism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Shintoism and Paganism, who all contradict God’s NML and His Church, are illustrations of living proof that there can only be One Truth by the fruits that these social contradictions bear.”

What bad fruits have I bore? Seriously, what have I, an atheist done wrong other than deny your god’s existence? Have I stolen? Murdered? Committed adultery? Failed to honor my parents? What is my crime?
What exactly do you suggest we do about all these evildoers, the communists and atheists, etc.?

“God gave man an intellect and free will that he may govern himself with the guidance of God’s natural laws and the guidance God gives through His Church.”

You contradict yourself. You say that the infallible church has no business running governments, yet only those who strictly adhere to and promote the church’s own laws and believe that the church is the actual higher infallible authority on all moral matters should run governments. Ergo the church’s tenets are the only tenets governments can apply/ be beholden to. That sir, is the very definition of a theocracy.

You want your infallible church to be the sole arbiter on all moral matters, all laws. That is precisely a theocracy.

And when you say ‘the church is infallible, to whom at ‘the church’ may I send a list of morality questions? I have several. Seriously. To whom do I address the envelope? Which man or men will be able to give me the final, true and infallible answers to my questions?
Hold it, men are flawed and imperfect, how can I trust any of them?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADRUNNER
CHRISTIANITY AND CIVIL LAW.

IRT:
[Civil law derives its authority from the Natural Moral Law (NML) whose author is God.”]

“Then it is strictly a religious concept.”

ANS:
If the Commandments are “STRICTLY” a religious concept then why are there laws against murder, lying, and stealing in Civil Law? If you are correct, then to make such prohibitive laws is to violate the Constitution’s freedom of religion by forcing all people to obey religious precepts.

To the contrary, succinctly, all Civil Law must be based on the Natural Law (NL). That is explicitly illustrated in the “Declaration of Independence” and the "Bill of Rights." They were based on the NML, and the NL. The NML is concerned with proper human behavior that is conducive to human nature.

The Christian moral concepts are concerned with the same moral human behavior. Civil Law and Religious laws of morality were delineated by Jesus when he said, “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” One concerns man’s relation to God, the other to the State. Neither is contradictory to the other but they are compenetrate and in consonance with man.

IRT:
“Is there any NML that is contrary to Christian Biblical canon? If not, then it is nothing more than Christianity. Much of the world rejects Christianity.”

ANS:
God gave man a free will that he may freely choose the Truth or deny it. Truth does not depend on belief. Man can choose to believe the Truth or deny it, but he cannot choose the consequences. They are the domain of God.

If by Church cannon you mean the Church’s doctrines and morals, there are no contradictions between Moral Laws of Reason and Church Moral Law. Truth cannot contradict Truth. God is Truth, and all authority and laws come from God; consequently, reason, and true faith are compenetrate and complement each other.

Jesus said to Pilate, “You would have no power over me, had it not been given to you from above.”—John 19:1-12

Second, Religious Moral Laws do not contradict the nature of man; they are a gift to man that he might know how to live the good life and obtain eternal happiness. Thus, Aristotle, for the same reasons, sought in his Nicomachean Ethics what are the laws that man should live by to be happy.

Aristotle illustrates there are universal moral laws that order society auspiciously. Namely, the NML is found by reason in Aristotle's Ethics, and also by Devine Revelation expressed in the Commandments.

Because of Adam, man kind of lost his way, and God sent a Redeemer to establish a Church that would not teach errors and contradictions of his laws.

The Church’s moral laws are universal because all men have the same nature. Since man is a finite creature and subject to error, God established a Church that is infallible—(Mt. 28:20 Mt.10; John 15: 26-27)—when it teaches its universal doctrines in faith and morals. To do otherwise would make God a fool.

In civil affairs other than moral universal teachings, the Church does not have infallibility; therefore, the Church has no more authority in governing than does the State. Hence, rulers should be chosen for their competence and character in government affairs. Infallibility is given so that man may have the highest certitude in the Church’s teachings for man's salvation.

The Church’s mission is not to govern nations; its mission is to guide man to accomplish the purpose for which he exists, and to assist man in governing himself by teaching man Her moral principles. God gave man an intellect and free will that he may govern himself with the guidance of God’s natural laws and the guidance God gives through His Church.

However, man justly cannot contradict God’s laws because all laws that govern man come from God who is Truth, and Truth cannot contradict Truth. Consequently, man uses the Church’s moral precepts and applies them in his governing decisions.

More so, we can authenticate the authority of the Church by the fruits it bears. Those who defy Her precepts bear bad fruit. Hence, Communism, Fascism, Animism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Shintoism and Paganism, who all contradict God’s NML and His Church, are illustrations of living proof that there can only be One Truth by the fruits that these social contradictions bear.

Consequently, the social tranquility of the order of any society is in proportion to its adherence to our Judeo-Christian moral principles that have made America one of the most successful nations in history.

Folks with OCD are likely to cease and desist with their redundant behavior when pigs can fly, and not before.

If it's not one thing it's another...from morning til night. A sorry but annoying state of affairs.....and disruptive to one and all. Pity the poor family that has to live with it!!

It appears that both religionists and anti-religionists are prone to suffer from this intractable syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_disorder

ABHAB

You wrote, "Yes! in theory: that is if all the people in that country have the same religion and all citizens refuse the principle of separation between Mosque and State."

Interesting choice of words, "Mosque and State", considering that the question was about "religious rules and authorities".

Is islam the only "religion" in it's very conception that has as it's goal a theocratic state for the entire planet?

You wrote, "Otherwise there will be infringement on the rights of some of the citizens."

What if even one citizen does not have the same "religion"?

You wrote, " If Pakistan satisfies these conditions, let their clerics rule them. How much worse can it get for them?"

Time will tell.

By your very "Yes! in theory...", according to you there should not be even one "islamic country" on the entire planet.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

It is obvious that Farnaz2 Masumian will not stop her use of straw men (e.g. Spark1) and aliases. She is one delusional woman who thinks she can make her Baha'i "faith" more important than it really is by promoting various aspects of it without actually identifying it as such.

Ms. Farnaz2 Masumian references related to the Baha'i cult: (from a search using "Phantom Islamic Shadow groups/Google/Facebook.

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-bahai&tid=556

http://bahai-library.com/file.php?file=masumian_mysticism_bahai

Those free thinkers who run this forum select their topic cleaverly. The reader is quickly tempted to go for or against the topic.
In real life the lines are not so stictly drawn.
Religion do not necessarily mean rule by the clergy.
The presently politicians themselves are attached to the religion and make decisions on the basis of their faith, sometimes keeping their agenda hidden.
What the Neo-con + Blair + Spainish and Italian were doing in the recent past is a good example.
Discarding the religion from the daily life means freedom to have abortion, freedom of gay marriages, freedom to use drugs and all the vices carried in the name of freedom and progressive enlightentment.
The clerics in Swat are not going to march on Islamabad anyway. These news are being spread to achieve something else.
While forces of 35 countries, Pakistan and Afghan governments supporting them are there how it is possible for a group of clerks to capture Islamabad.

Those free thinkers who run this forum select their topic cleaverly. The reader is quickly tempted to go for or against the topic.
In real life the lines are not so stictly drawn.
Religion do not necessarily mean rule by the clergy.
The presently politicians themselves are attached to the religion and make decisions on the basis of their faith, sometimes keeping their agenda hidden.
What the Neo-con + Blair + Spainish and Italian were doing in the recent past is a good example.
Discarding the religion from the daily life means freedom to have abortion, freedom of gay marriages, freedom to use drugs and all the vices carried in the name of freedom and progressive enlightentment.
The clerics in Swat are not going to march on Islamabad anyway. These news are being spread to achieve something else.
While forces of 35 countries, Pakistan and Afghan governments supporting them are there how it is possible for a group of clerks to capture Islamabad.

Should religions rule nations? No.
Did religions rule nations? Yes.
Does religion rule some nations? Yes.

Will Pakistan be rule by the religion of the Taliban? Very Likely.

Pakistan is an Islamic state. The people of Pakistan want the state to be Islamic and ruled by Islam. They just never could agree which and whose Islam. Pakistan is also a feudal society with very great inequity and deeply rooted corruption. The ruling elite is corrupt and incapable of seeing the changes that absolutely need to be made to stop a violent revolution. The Taliban are very cleverly and astutely using the cry of Islam and the discontent among the poor to align against the establishment. Regardless of the fairy tales being woven by the Ambassador of Pakistan and the government of Pakistan, the Taliban and their allies have penetrated into all the various parts of the country. The army is to significant degree talibanised already. The army realizes that if it attempts to take on the Taliban directly that there will be a bloody civil war with the army fighting amongst itself. In this sense the army stands neutralized. The elite and the establishment do not have the ideological arguments in place to win the Taliban take over. The leadership of Pakistan, Zardari, Nawaz Sharif, etc do not have the intelligence to see what is happening and are utterly at sea regarding the plan being implemented by the Taliban. Therefore it is very likely that the Taliban will keep increasing their hold in the Panjab over the next six to 12 months and by that time they should be strong enough that most of Pakistan will fall into their hands just as Swat did.
An excellent brief analysis of the real issue in Pakistan by Sarah Humayun:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\04\23\story_23-4-2009_pg3_2
Absolutely worth reading and Pakistanis who love pakistan should heed her words carefully.

It is obvious that Farnaz Masumian will not stop her use of straw men and aliases (e.g. Spark1 aka Bookstudy- her latest). She is one delusional woman who thinks she can make her Baha'i "faith" more important than it really is by promoting various aspects of it without actually identifying it as such.

A synopsis of Baha'ism:

"Baha' Ullah taught his followers that all religions come from the same source, and that divine revelation is continuous and progressive. Messengers of God, according to the teachings of Baha'u'llah, include Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, and the Buddah. Baha'u'llah was the most recent, the Manifestation of God for the New Era. His was one of the first world religions to preach the unity of the whole human race and to teach that all religions are the work of one God."

Read Farnaz aka Spark1 aka Bookstudy's commentaries as they ooze of Baha'isms.

Clergy Rule—Is It the Answer?
PEOPLE the world over are tired of injustice, oppression, and political corruption. They want something better, as is evident from their efforts to change political leaders. But new leaders seldom if ever bring the people contentment.
Some think that clergy rule would result in better government. They believe that clergymen would bring godly qualities into governmental affairs. It was probably with this in mind that cleric Marion (Pat) Robertson, a U.S. presidential hopeful in 1988, prayed that “godly people” would win political office. But would this really answer the need for better rulers?
When the Clergy Ruled Europe
During the Middle Ages, the clergy had tremendous secular power. Why, popes were able to crown and dethrone kings! In 800 C.E., Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. For a thousand years, this empire represented the union of Church and State, and during that time the clergy enjoyed varying degrees of power over secular authorities.
Beginning in the 11th century, the papacy took over the role of leader in Europe. In this regard, The Columbia History of the World, edited by John Garraty and Peter Gay, says: “The church was Europe’s greatest government.” This book also observes that the church was able to “wield more political power than any other Western government.” What was the situation of the people under clergy rule?
No one was free to worship as he pleased or to express opinions conflicting with those of the clergy. This clerical intolerance created a climate of fear throughout Europe. The church established the Inquisition to root out individuals who dared to hold different views. Considered heretics, they were brought before inquisitors, who tortured them for confessions. Often, those found guilty were burned at the stake.
Regarding clergy rule in Spain, The Columbia History of the World states: “Wars and the crusading ideology had welded together an orthodox and snobbish aristocracy and clergy which held all the reins of power in the state. Intellectual life had been crippled by censorship and the Inquisition, which had been used against anyone protesting against either official theology or state policy.”
In his book The Age of Faith, Will Durant said: “Making every allowance required of an historian and permitted to a Christian, we must rank the Inquisition, along with the wars and persecutions of our time, as among the darkest blots on the record of mankind, revealing a ferocity unknown in any beast.” In the Middle Ages, clergy rule meant the destruction of personal liberties.
Did the Protestant reformer John Calvin differ from the Catholic clergy? Well, consider what happened when Michael Servetus fled from persecution by the Spanish clergy and was apprehended in Geneva, Switzerland. There, Calvin had set up a community over which he and his ministers ruled with absolute power. Because Servetus denied the Trinity, Calvin achieved what had eluded the Inquisition. Servetus was condemned to death for heresy and was burned at the stake. Calvin thus showed the same intolerance as the Catholic clergy.
Did clergy domination of secular governments mean peace for the people of Europe? No, indeed. Instead of enjoying peace, they had to endure years of clergy-inspired warfare. Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade and thus began a series of wars that lasted for 200 years. Moreover, clergy-fomented wars against people considered to be heretics resulted in the death of thousands of men, women, and children.
Did clergy rule eliminate corruption? Not in the least. The book A History of the Modern World, by R. R. Palmer and Joel Colton, states: “Increasingly the life of the church was corrupted by money. No one believed in bribery; but everyone knew that many high churchmen (like many high civil officials of the day) could be bribed.” Corruption among the clergy was a common complaint.
Did clergy rule result in compassion for the common people? By no means. For instance, consider what happened when Cardinal Richelieu of France gained control of governmental affairs during the reign of Louis XIII. The book The History of the Nations, edited by Henry Cabot Lodge, says that Richelieu’s “policy was based on the ruin of the French liberties.”
In Mexico during the 17th century, Indian towns were often ruled by the clergy. According to the book Many Mexicos, by Lesley Simpson, the clergy considered the whipping post “an indispensable aid for implanting and maintaining the Christian virtues, as well as for the punishment of secular offenses.”
History books thus enable us to examine the record of clergy rule over the centuries. What does that record reveal? Shocking disregard for the happiness, well-being, and liberties of the common people. Indeed, clergy rule has been unendurable despotism. As Daniel Defoe wrote in his work The True-Born Englishman: “And of all plagues with which mankind are curst, ecclesiastic tyranny’s the worst.”
Obviously, then, clergy rule is not the answer to man’s need for better government. So, to whom can we turn? The answer is within the reach of everyone.

To Gladerunner

It would be great if the world could be so neatly divided into non-overlapping spheres, but reality is always messy. Laws which serve a secular purpose, a religious purpose, interpreted by religious authorities or secular authorities...neat but not real.

An example--not working one day a week began as a Jewish religious law, but did not involve in its origins any worship or going to the synagogue or temple. It was good for man and beast to take a day off from labor and consider other things of importance beyond the economy.

The idea became enshrined in Western law, served a religious purpose, but never ceased to be good for labor and family life. Now it probably serves little purpose since many businesses stay open all week, baseball games are played every day, and bars open earlier and stay open later.

At the same time it is for millions of Christians the Sabbath, as is Saturday for Jews and Friday for Muslims.

I don't believe you can so easily separate the strands of long-standing law from custom, from religion, or from culture. It is what it is.

As to who governs and with what authority, there is little question in the American socialist, democratic republic that religion does NOT dictate polity or law. We are in total agreement on that question. The reality of the situation is messy and requires constant watching.

Not if Pakistan wants to continue as a democracy. Democracy demands secularism. The problem in having a state religion is that there will always be a conflict between the constitution of the country and the state religion's holy book. Any written word is open to interpretation. In the case of the constitution it has in built mechanisms in the form of a Judicial branch to resolve such questions on interpretation. A holy book does not have that. There will be many groups each with their own interpretation of the book. In that case the group that is the loudest, and sometimes the most violent, will win the argument.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2 “Civil law derives its authority from the Natural Moral Law (NML) whose author is God.”
Then it is strictly a religious concept.
Is there any NML that is contrary to Christian Biblical canon? If not, then it is nothing more than Christianity. Much of the world rejects Christianity.
NML presumes that NML, the knowledge of what is good and what is bad is etched into our hearts at birth by god. If so, then why do we need to teach children right from wrong? If so then why do we need any laws within nations and states? Why not just let god sort it all out?

“Hence, man does not have the nature of a bird”
No good, that’s a false argument. Man doesn’t have the physical properties of a bird. You are misusing the word ‘nature’. It isn’t a mental state, it isn’t a morality or mental difference, it’s a physical difference.

“However, the Court has done something similarly. It incomprehensibly declared that the conceived is not a human in spite of all the scientific evidence that contradicts them from all credible Microbiologists, Microphysicists. Eugenicists and Embryologists”

Nice try. The problem with the court vs. science argument you present is actually about the use and meaning of the word ‘human.’ Science does not disagree that the ‘conceived’ is of human DNA. I think the term is ‘potential human’ in that a fertilized human egg will certainly not eventually become a Hyena or a washing machine. What science disagrees with is the ensoulment issue. Whether or not the embryo has a consciousness or self awareness, or as the religious call it a soul. As consciousness is what ultimately defines and separates humans from other animals, the argument is that since an early embryo lacks that it is not quite a full human, any more than an acorn is an oak tree or a hunk of metal is an automobile.

“To the contrary, the NML is universal law”
No it is not. It addresses all humans, but it is not accepted by all humans as a supreme law of the land. Just because someone writes a set of what he calls ‘universal law’ does not make it universal.

“NML is as true as are the laws of mathematics and physics are.”
Not quite. Anywhere on the planet it can be proven irrevocably that two things added to two things equals four things. NML is based on religious doctrine, and I don’t need to tell you that religious doctrines and laws vary quite a bit around the world and throughout the ages.

“Every human being is under the regime of the NL and consequently the NLM.”
That’s the tail wagging the dog. The NL and NLM are not the creators of themselves, they were designed by men to reflect that which was already observed. They are a result, not a source.

“Disagreements on morality cannot be based on subjective whims but for the social good of man.”
Who is asking for that? Who is calling for a complete absence of laws?
Who decides what the ‘social good of man’ is? Man does.

I do not disagree that among all the different belief systems that have ever been that there are certain ‘laws’ that are common. We would not disagree on general restrictions of murder, theft or false testimony, or the right to choose one’s government for example.
However, the debate is NEVER about just these things.
The flaw in your natural law argument breaks down in the definitions of terms. You consider abortion to be murder, I do not. I consider taxation to be theft, you may not. I may consider Idaho’s right to have as many U.S senators as California as unfair, you may not. I may consider a former president’s lies to congress as immoral; others may argue that he had a moral obligation to his family to lie to protect his family’s privacy.
And the big one, at least for many of you guys; the gay thing.
What does NML say about homosexuality?

That debate will come down to agreeing to the very definition of the word ‘natural’ won’t it?

“Since all men have the same nature”
No, they do not. They have similar tendencies. You are misusing the word ‘nature’ again.

“what is “basically” good for one man's nature as man is by necessity good for all men.”
That’s just hokum.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? That’s exactly what Lenin, Stalin and Hitler professed. Natural law?

NO they should not.

Nations ought to be ruled by the brightest, most inteligent, most honest, decent, compassionate, loving and morally clean men and women that can be find within the people of a nation.

They should be required to have wisdom, discernment and a good thorough undestanding of the Economy of their Country.

They should be Just people without being legalist. They need to demonstrate Love for all people and not prejudge.

They must surround themselves with the most knowledgeable people in every field of study, and not just religious people.

They need to be family men and women who can understand the stress and struggles of caring for a family. They must not be perverts.

These are just the basics. More could be required depending on many other factors. These virtues are not always found in religious people, History have prove that time and again.

Not a brainer!

I believe in God; that being said I must answer No, never, under no circumstance. Maybe that is because I am spiritual, not religious.

Forget the fact that even within in one religion people can not agree on "the rules". Forget the fact that all these rules came hundreds, if not thousands of years ago and for the most part no longer apply. Forget the fact there is no concrete proof of God’s existence, forget the fact any one religion could be wrong.

The biggest reason we can never let this happen is if religion becomes law and God says you are to kill people, for any reason, who is left to conscientiously object? How does a society ever evolve because religion sets its law in stone?

If religion ever becomes law in enough countries, God, please push the Earth into the path of an on coming comet because as a species we need to start over.

It is obvious that Farnaz Masumian will not stop her use of straw men (e.g. Spark1) and aliases. She is one delusional woman who thinks she can make her Baha'i "faith" more important than it really is by promoting various aspects of it without actually identifying it as such.

A synopsis of Baha'ism:

"Baha' Ullah taught his followers that all religions come from the same source, and that divine revelation is continuous and progressive. Messengers of God, according to the teachings of Baha'u'llah, include Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, and the Buddah. Baha'u'llah was the most recent, the Manifestation of God for the New Era. His was one of the first world religions to preach the unity of the whole human race and to teach that all religions are the work of one God."

Read Farnaz aka Spark1's commentaries as they ooze of Baha'isms.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADRUNNER
“LAW”

IRT:
“You are confusing ‘traditional morality’ with law.”

ANS:
Tradition morality is the basis for all human laws. Civil law derives its authority from the Natural Moral Law (NML) whose author is God. It is a derivative of the Natural Law (NL). Any law contrary to the NL is not legitimate, viz. it cannot bind man to it except by force.

Thusly, the 13 Colonies revolted against England because they determined that their universal inviolable rights were being violated.

Laws that concern human behavior must be in accord with human nature. Hence, the Bill of Rights is based on the NML. They are inherent natural rights so that man may be in accord with his human nature and capable of achieving his purpose for which man has been created.

Hence, man does not have the nature of a bird. If he tries to fly by jumping off a cliff thinking he is a bird and can fly, he won’t be around too long.

Just laws bring order to society. The NML is a gift from God that men live according to the purpose he was created. Subjective morality is on display in Russia, China, and North Korea. Are their morals as legitimate as ours?

The NML is the rules for proper human behavior so demanded by man’s nature to be in accord with the society in which he lives, but if they are subjective than your morals are not any more legitimate than Hitler's Idi Amine's, or Saddam, or Stalin’s. Therefore, there must be objective morals that apply to all men.

Man made laws, a.k.a. Civil Laws, must be based on human nature, or else they would contradict his nature. Laws that contradict the NML or the NL are illegitimate. Further, religions that contradict human nature are also illegitimate.

Consequently, as Courts cannot legitimately declare flies cannot fly, similarly the Court cannot define man is not a person when all patent evidence shows he is.

However, the Court has done something similarly. It incomprehensibly declared that the conceived is not a human in spite of all the scientific evidence that contradicts them from all credible Microbiologists, Microphysicists. Eugenicists and Embryologists.

IRT:
“You are also falsely promoting YOUR traditional morality as a UNIVERSAL morality. It is not. Laws in this nation are constructed, or at least should be, on individual rights and individual freedom.”

ANS:
To the contrary, the NML is universal law and is in accord to man’s nature. The NML is as true as are the laws of mathematics and physics are. Hence, murder is not licit in any society or civilization. Further, such moral behavior as lying, stealing, adultery, the Seven Deadly sins are universally illicit. These acts rail against human nature and the social order throughout history.

Laws that are in accord with the NML are licit. They represent such things as freedom of speech, religion, right to life, right to own property, etc. Every human being is under the regime of the NL and consequently the NLM.

The NML is embedded in the “The Ten
Commandments” that were given to Moses from God.” If the NML were subjective it would be meaningless because it would have no relevance and not be based on human nature but on the whims of ones subjective wants.

IRT:
“Arbitrary and wildly varying religious taboos have no place in a truly free society.”

ANS:
That is correct, but not only religious buffoonery, but arbitrary morals are included. Hence, subjective morality would be socially in disarray. If your neighbor subjectively approves of murder, or arson, or thievery, what moral authority would one have to say he couldn’t do that because you disagree unless it violated the NML?

Disagreements on morality cannot be based on subjective whims but for the social good of man. Now what is good for man is what is conducive to his nature. Since all men have the same nature, what is “basically” good for one man's nature as man is by necessity good for all men.

Yes! in theory: that is if all the people in that country have the same religion and all citizens refuse the principle of separation between Mosque and State. Otherwise there will be infringement on the rights of some of the citizens. If Pakistan satisfies these conditions, let their clerics rule them. How much worse can it get for them?

First part of question, "How would you respond to radical Muslim clerics in northwest Pakistan -- now under Islamic law -- who are calling for expansion of Islamic law across the entire federal republic of Pakistan."

From what I have heard about islam and some of the things that I have read about islam this seems to me to be the natural progression of islam and it is not just for one country but for the entire planet.

Second part of question, "Should any nation be governed by religious rules or authorities?"

No.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

BCASS05 “I think what I'm saying is that complete and unambiguous separation of state and religion is technically impossible”
It’s actually quite simple. If a proposed law serves no secular purpose, then it is in violation of the first amendment.
For example: mandatory prayer time in public schools. This serves no secular purpose. It only serves a religious one. Thus, it is in violation.
Another example: Laws against murder. It is specifically addressed in most religious creeds, but it also serves a secular purpose.
Another: Laws requiring business to close on Sundays. This also serves no secular purpose.

A secular nation decides on its own laws. Where those laws originated, or what they are similar to becomes moot once they are enacted by that nations secular legal mechanism.

Example: Japan. The Japanese constitution was rebuilt after the war. It was based on the U.S. constitution. However in the sixty odd years since that time many laws that have been enacted in Japan do not coincide with U.S. laws and v/v. That the U.S. constitution was the basis for the Japanese constitution means they are similar, yet neither country is required to enact the subsequent laws of the other. They are similar in content; they share the same ancestry, but are independent of each other.
Just because the bible addresses murder and theft, and this nations’ laws do as well, does not mean that the nation's laws are subject to religious authority or interpretation.
Does religious belief of individuals sway political ideology? Of course. A persons philosophy is part of a persons thought processes, religious or not. Fortunately our nation is diverse enough to limit the ability of any narrow religious philosophy to become supreme law of the land.

The politicians without overtly confessing their religious affiliations, strongly reflect their ideas in govt policies. Look at the Bush and his neo-con team plus Blair and other world leaders who fought the latest wars to clear the way for second coming of Jesus.
Lastly, The Iranian revolution is a clear example that religion in politics is not a danger to other countries, its another matter that Iraq was encouraged and supplied with lethal arms to fight Iran for several years.
The victory of FIF in elections was never accepted by the west and they were denied right to form govt which lead to bloody civil war in Algeria.
When militant groups such as Hamas try to resort to democratic means their victory was denied by the west.
BJP is a Hindu religious party with extreme views but they seek power and no one cries. There are religious parties in Europe who are in power politics - then why we should deny such a right to the people in Muslim countries

Religion has been raising human consciousness for centuries. Whatever man is now, whatever little consciousness he has, the whole credit goes to religion. Politics with out religion has been a curse, a calamity; and whatever is ugly in humanity, politics is responsible for.
The fact is that Politics interfere with the religion and for material gains vilify religion.
Writes John Esposito:
"For more than four decades governments formulated policy in the midst of a superpower rivalry that defined the globe and the future in terms of the visible ideological and military threat posed by the Soviet Union. In the aftermath of the cold war, the fall of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of communism have created a "threat vacuum" that has given rise to a search for new enemies. For some Americans the enemy is the economic challenge the Japanese or the European Community represent. For others it is an Islamic world whose 1 billion Muslims form a majority in more than 48 countries and a rapidly growing minority in Europe and America. Some view Islam as the only ideological alternative to the West that can cut across national boundaries, and perceiving it as politically and culturally at odds with Western society, fear it; others consider it more a basic demographic threat...........
The causes of the resurgence are many and differ from country to country, but common catalysts and concerns are identifiable. Secular nationalism (whether in the form of liberal nationalism, Arab nationalism, or socialism) has not provided a sense of national identity or produced strong and prosperous societies. The governments in Muslim countries-- mostly nonelected, authoritarian, and dependent on security forces--have been unable to establish their political legitimacy. They have been blamed for the failure to achieve economic self-sufficiency, to stem the widening gap between rich and poor, to halt widespread corruption, to liberate Palestine, to resist Western political and cultural hegemony. Both the political and the religious establishments have come under criticism, the former as a westernized, secular elite overly concerned with power and privilege, and the latter (in Sunni Muslim nations) as leaders of the faithful who have been co-opted by governments that often control mosques and religious universities and other institutions".

I guess readers know what the question means, but it is somewhat ambiguous. Is it governance by rules or religious authorities if laws mirror certain religious precepts or if elected officials happen to be religious? Most of us would say, "Of course not". Yet sometimes the only difference is the label someone puts on the law or the official. I think what I'm saying is that complete and unambiguous separation of state and religion is technically impossible.

Today's religions are weighed down with so many flaws and errors in their history, theology and claims to be the one and only way to salvation, they have no capacity to rule countries let alone villages. We predict religions will be extinct or on their way to extinction in ten years.

As a secularist, I have to say "of course not."

That said, I do think that religions have provided a check and balance against the power of government to in places where other types of non-government-controlled social organizations were lacking:

The Civil Rights movement in the South was largely organized through black churches
A Polish pope provided a focal point for opposition to Soviet Communism
Buddhist monks demonstrated against the repressive government of Myanmar, partly because they're one the only functioning non-governmental organization in that country

In free societies like America, the people have many avenues to oppose government tyranny. In a non-free society, the church can provide a necessary alternative to government in forming social organizations. In a theocracy, that check and balance is lost.