Question of importance
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30675
Printed Date: 27 April 2024 at 3:15am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Question of importance
Posted By: Sarek
Subject: Question of importance
Date Posted: 08 August 2014 at 6:46am
|
Hello all.
This will be my only post on your board. My question/theme is this. Why is it that the Three great religions kill each other, we all believe in God, and we differ on who he is, and we have aggression towards each other. All three parties are guilty. So we sit here and we stand and we fight each other. My question is this, we all are close to God in some way because we believe, but what about people who don't believe in any God? Why are the Three great religions not getting together to fight this enemy? If atheism gets it's way all of us will lose our God. Then what? Keep that in mind next time you take up arms. God bless you all. Good bye. |
Replies:
Posted By: Laleh
Date Posted: 12 August 2014 at 9:29pm
|
Greetings and Peace Sarek. Really that is a great topic for discussion. Too bad you may not plan to return to participate in the discussion. After all this is a discussion forum :) In The Quran, Christians and Jews are referred to as "people of the Book". In fact, Islam if practiced correctly encourages co-existence of the people of the religions in peace. It is imperfect individuals that misinterpret and start the incorrect practices. If you are Christian or Jewish, what is your take on this thought? ------------- 24:35...Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 13 August 2014 at 8:31am
This is the sort of ignorant prejudice that drives me crazy! If the Christians get their way, then Muslims will have to accept Christian dogma and abandon the teachings of the "heretic" Muhammad. If the Muslims get their way, then Christians will have to accept Muslim dogma and abandon the "heretical" concept of the Trinity. If virtually any religion gets its way, then that religion's dogma becomes the law of the land, and all other religions will have to accept it, or face accusations of heresy. And atheists? We have no dogma, so we don't care. You can believe whatever silly superstitions you want as far as we are concerned, as long as you don't try to impose them on us. We have far more to fear from you guys than you have from us. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Sarek wrote:Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 13 August 2014 at 9:08am
Righhhht, because atheists are "humanists" and wouldn't hurt a soul... ...well besides atheist mass murderers like Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot etc., etc. (cough)... ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Power of GOD
Date Posted: 13 August 2014 at 1:32pm
IF WE JUST DO WHAT JESUS SAID THERE WILL BE NO PROBLEMS IN THIS WORLD.
Efephians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Then everybody who wants to be saved listen to other relegions and reject Jesus's words so every one who have came after Jesus is a thief and a robber who have robed the humans of thier true way to salvation.
2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
Why must the folowers of Jesus fight on earth if thier kingdom is not on earth.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, �My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.� http://biblehub.com/nasb/john/18.htm - Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another, for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law." (Romans 13:8). The law had much to say about interpersonal relationships. To sum it all up, all these commandments would fall under the single command, "Love your neighbor". If one truly loves his neighbor, then he would treat his neighbor according to the many commandments of the law. This is certainly still true today. Under the law of Christ our relationships with others could be summed up the same way, to love our neighbors as ourselves. For example, we are to "bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). We are told to "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. And be kind to one another, just as God in Christ has forgiven you. Therefore, be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you..." (Ephesians 4:31-5:2a). Also, Jesus told His disciples that the greatest commandment after loving God is to "love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 19:19). Paul quotes these words of Jesus later in the context (Romans 13:9b). We fulfill the law of Christ with respect to our relationships with others only when we have this unselfish, active goodwill toward them. The Commandments and Our Neighbors
"For this, 'You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,' and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in the saying, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong toward a neighbor, love therefore is a fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:9,10).There were both Jews and Gentiles at the church in Rome. The Jews knew the Law of Moses well. Paul points out to them that loving people the way Jesus said we should is not an entirely new concept. The Law of Moses had taught pretty much the same thing. Something else; it is suggested that we owe it to others to treat them this way. We are to consider love as a debt we owe to others. I should never place myself in the position of owing someone something because I have mistreated them and justice demands I make it up to them. There is no circumstance which allows me to be dishonest or hateful. We are told to "respect what is right in the sight of all men" and never to take "your own revenge" (Romans 12:17-21). With reference to the commandments of the Law of Moses, the Law of Christ certainly elaborates upon them. For example, Jesus not only condemned adultery, but also lust. He taught that his disciples were not only to refrain from murder, but also from hate (Matthew 5:21-22; 27-28). Jesus taught us to be perfect, or complete in our love for others. He said if we only love those who love us in return, we are no different than unbelievers. Instead, we are to be perfect, loving the just and the unjust, just like our Father (Matthew 5:43-48). Motivation to Treat Others Righteously "And this do, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light." (Romans 13:11,12). It is time to wake up to the spiritual realities of our positions as it relates to eternity. It is not the time to go through life in a spiritual stupor as many seem so intent to do. It is time to wake up because the gospel of light is entering into a dark world shedding its light everywhere. Its promise of eternal salvation is closer to being realized by men and women of faith today than it was yesterday, and each day moves us closer to eternity. God now commands men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) as the gospel of grace finds its way through the world. Christians should always live with the awareness that discipleship is serious business. Sadly, many still sleep, ignoring the approaching eternal darkness that awaits them if they do not seek the light today. Our motivation to obey God, including those commands to love others, is that salvation is now closer than when we first believed. We are to live righteously with respect to others, never placing ourselves into moral indebtedness to others because we have sinned against them. In this sense, we are "owe nothing to anyone" with but this exception: we owe them our love. "Will that be cash or charge?" Jesus Counsels the Rich Young RulerNow behold, one came and said to Him, �Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?� So He said to him, �Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.� He said to Him, �Which ones?� Jesus said, ��You shall not murder,� �You shall not commit adultery,� �You shall not steal,� �You shall not bear false witness,Honor your father and your mother,� and, �You shall love your neighbor as yourself.� The young man said to Him, �All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?�
Jesus said to him, �If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.� But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
If we must look at the world today you will wonder is there anyone that will go to heaven cause no one is obeying GOD'S law not even one.
|
Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 14 August 2014 at 2:22am
| It depends on faith if ur faith in Allah is strong like a root there is no fear of loosing help of Allah,but if u observe about christianity, christian means the one who follows Jesus Christ (pbuh), Jesus Christ(pbuh), in gospel of John ch 16 v 12-14 says the coming of prophet Muhammad S.A.W (pbuh),tteaching the word of Allah I.e Quran so all things lead to truth I.e islam.moreover ron sir I don't know y u waste time in this forum when u r proud of ur atheism. |
Posted By: Power of GOD
Date Posted: 14 August 2014 at 11:41am
John 16
The spirit of truth will glorify Jesus and all Muhammad have done nothing but descredit Jesus by demoting him to a prophet and not the son of God Muhammad was no spirit of truth he was a selfish war lord and a infidel human been who claimed he was a prophet of Allah and discredit his name Jesus was without sin and Muhammad was a sinner you can't even compare Muhammad to even one of the Bible's prophets.
12 �I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. #cen-NIV-26739A - A )'> 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, #cen-NIV-26740B - B )'> comes, he will guide you into all the truth. #cen-NIV-26740C - C )'> He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 August 2014 at 7:48am
No, not all atheists are humanists. Unfortunately.
As I keep telling you, there are good and bad people in every group. Atheism is no exception. However, none of the mass murderers you mentioned committed their crimes because of, or in the name of, atheism. That's the difference. We have no ideology that tells us to kill believers wherever we find them. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 August 2014 at 10:12am
And not all religious people believe in killing in the name of their religion. What a coincidence! 
 Your fake attempts to tell people what the Quran says are not going to fool anyone. Your reference to Surah Tawba only further proves how *****ic and ignorant your are. As far as atheists like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, they were all influenced by Karl Marx and the "Communist Manifesto", which among other things, declared religion to be part of the problem. Therefore, it was part of their ideology to be anti-religion, and which drove their pogroms against religious people. For example, Pol Pot persecuted any group which was a "detriment" to the "party", and he included religious groups in that list. According to Cory Campbell of the "Haing S. Ngor Foundation": "Pol Pot knew what he was doing all along, playing quite the contrary to his later claims of ignorance regarding the killings and suffering. The Constitution of Democratic Kampuchea declared freedom of religion in the state, with the exception of any form of worship 'detrimental' to the party. Without clearly defining what classifies a religion as being 'detrimental', Pol Pot was able to use this constitutional clause to justify the purge of religions such as Buddhism and Islam." ( http://www.haingngorfoundation.org/_documents/BetweenTheLinesOfThePolPotRegime.pdf - http://www.haingngorfoundation.org/_documents/BetweenTheLinesOfThePolPotRegime.pdf ) ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 17 August 2014 at 10:17am
Yes, they were partly influenced by Marx, who saw religion as part of the problem. Therefore religion was part of a part of their ideology. It was by no means the main focus. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were communists primarily engaged in a class struggle, not a religious one. As I said earlier, none of them committed their crimes because of, or in the name of, atheism. Be afraid of communism if you want, but not atheism. Most atheists are not communist. I'm certainly not.
Seriously? Seriously? Now you're citing a term paper from an undergrad college student as your "source"?"EDITOR�S NOTE: Cory Campbell is a 21 year old history major in his first semester at Cal State Long Beach. He spent three years prior to this at Cypress College. Cory wrote this paper for a Methodology of History course (HIST 301, Fall 2007)." It's especially amusing that Mr. Campbell spent three years at http://www.cypresscollege.edu/about/atAGlance - Cypress College , which describes itself as a two year college. Sounds like a real honours student!  ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 17 August 2014 at 11:14am
What a load of crock! Each of these tyrants went out of his way to "purge" anyone who was seen as a "detriment" to the "revolution". Among these were people with religious beliefs. Anyone who refused to abandon his religious beliefs was either imprisoned or killed. This was all in the name of atheism.
Really, Ron? I mean, really? You can't refute the claims of someone, so you attack their credentials? Brilliant! If a foundation founded by a survivor of the Cambodian genocide felt that this paper written by an "undergrad college student" is factually accurate, then who cares what some atheist clown thinks?  Of course, a biased nincompoop such as yourself simply rejected the claims of this "undergrad" without bothering to even check if the paper's claims are accurate. How very objective of you! One way to check the paper's accuracy is to check the sources used by the author. For example, in his statement about Pol Pot and the purging of religion, Campbell cited the work of "award-winning journalist Elizabeth Becker" ( http://www.amazon.com/When-The-War-Was-Over/dp/1891620002 - http://www.amazon.com/When-The-War-Was-Over/dp/1891620002 ). For shame, Ron! Hang your head in shame!  But if that is not enough for you, let me quote another author. Harry Callahan writes in "The Dawkins' Delusion" (a delusion which you are definitely suffering from ):"Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970s killed 1.7 million of his own people. In fact, the Pol Pot regime specifically preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia." ("The Dawkins' Delusion, p. 161) So, anyone not blinded by atheistic propaganda knows that it is a fact of history that millions have been killed in the name of atheism. Atheistic apologist clowns like yourself can try to rewrite history, but you will ultimately fail and be exposed for the lying filth that you are...  ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Seriously? Seriously? Now you're citing a term paper from an undergrad college student as your "source"?
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 August 2014 at 8:49pm
You just said it yourself: the goal was to purge anyone who was a detriment to the (communist) revolution. Various religious, ethnic, regional and social groups opposed them, so they purged them. But the goal had nothing to do with religion. It was done in the name of communism, not atheism.
I didn't reject the claim. I just ignored it because it doesn't address my point. See above.
So now we've moved on from student term papers to self-published "vanity" books from unknown authors? Do you have any idea who Harry Callahan is, or what his credentials are? For that matter, do you have any idea what constitutes a credible source? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 18 August 2014 at 9:06pm
And the "revolutionaries" preached atheism. Hence, religion was a threat to them and so they proceeded to kill millions as a result. So much for "humanism".
You "ignored" it based on nothing except a childish claim against the credentials of the author. Your "point" was refuted, yet instead of offering an intelligent response, you tried to weasel your way out by ignoring the argument and attacking the author. As I said, who cares what some atheist clown thinks?
So again, no intelligent response, just an attack on the credentials of the author. Very impressive! We have already seen that the Pol Pot regime aggressively promoted and preaches atheism and violently killed anyone who opposed it, especially people with religious beliefs. The lie that atheist clowns promote has been proven wrong through an honest analysis of history. I guess atheists can be just as delusional as anyone else! ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 August 2014 at 9:27pm
An excellent question. It's a lot like the question I am asking about Cory Campbell and Harry Callahan.
Not "especially" people with religious beliefs. That among many other things: "The Khmer Rouge, in their attempt to socially engineer a classless peasant society, took particular aim at intellectuals, city residents, ethnic Vietnamese, civil servants and religious leaders." http://www.history.com/topics/pol-pot - http://www.history.com/topics/pol-pot Interestingly, your own "source", Cory Campbell, quotes the Khmer Rouge's attitude toward religion, according to the http://www.d.dccam.org/Archives/Documents/DK_Policy/DK_Policy_DK_Constitution.htm - Kampuchean Constitution : "Article 20: Every citizen of Kampuchea has the right to worship according to any religion and the right not to worship according to any religion. Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden." So, Pol Pot forbade any religion that opposed his regime -- which, as it turned out, was probably most/all of them, but only because they opposed communism. Communism, not atheism, was the goal. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 20 August 2014 at 9:15am
I bet you would, because after all, you are just an atheist clown! You have yet to offer a substantive rebuttal to the sources I have mentioned. All you have been able to do is to attack their credentials, as if you have any authority on the matter. The fact remains that Campbell's article was published by an organization founded by a survivor of the Cambodian genocide, who experienced first-hand the brutality of the Pol Pot regime.
Oh what a coincidence! Pol Pot just happens to preach atheism. And it just so happened that "most/all" religions "turned out" to "oppose his regime". Finally, it just so happened that Pol Pot proceeded to wipe out (or tried to) all religious practice. Mighty convenient, don't you think?  Communism and atheism go hand in hand. It's no surprise that every Communist "revolution" has attempted, one way or another, to "purge" religion and kill millions in the process. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 22 August 2014 at 10:02am
Because I don't substantively disagree with them, and I don't see how they support your argument. I just find it amusing that you would think they are worth quoting.
Pol Pot was probably atheist, but when did he "preach" atheism? Yes, most religious leaders opposed him, but so did most intellectuals, most urbanites, most/all Vietnamese, etc. Basically anyone with a brain or a backbone.
How odd, then, that none of my atheist friends are communist. How odd that the US Constitution (and can you get any more capitalist than that?) is entirely atheist.
Yes, communism is bad. So is fascism. So is any kind of extremism or totalitarianism, including religious fundamentalism. But I don't think there has ever been a revolution whose main goal was to promote atheism. As I said, as atheists we just don't care that much about your mythology, as long as you keep it to yourself and don't try to force it on us. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 22 August 2014 at 12:01pm
I find it amusing how you try to weasel your way out of a tight corner. First you attacked their credentials and now you say that you "don't substantively disagree with them".
So, I guess his ban on religious practice had nothing to do with the state atheism of the Khmer Rouge? I guess Pol Pot banned religion, but that somehow was not indicative of his atheistic policies?
Oh really? Have you even read the Constitution? How do you explain the closing of Article VII? "...done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names..." ( http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html - http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html ) I wouldn't expect an "entirely atheistic" document to specifically state "in the year of our Lord"! Also, Article I, Section 7 excludes Sunday from the normal schedule: "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law." Why was Sunday "excepted"? Obviously, given that it is the "Lord's Day" in Christianity, the implication is that the Constitution recognizes its religious significance.
And as religious people, we just don't care that much about your silly atheism, as long as you keep it to yourself and don't try to force it on us, like Pol Pot, "Chairman" Mao and Stalin. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 August 2014 at 7:53pm
He did not ban religion per se, and there is nothing in the Kampuchean Constitution about "state atheism".. He banned any religion that opposed him, just as he banned just about anything or anyone else who opposed him.
So what would you expect it to say? That's how the date was conventionally expressed in Western society at the time, in both religious and secular contexts.
No, the implication is that Sunday is by common agreement a day of rest, even among us atheists. This is really, really reaching. You must know that. Next you'll be telling me that every time I say goodbye (short for "God be with ye") to my friends, I am covertly affirming my religious beliefs.
So, you would not want to impose Sharia law if you had your way? You would not support draconian laws regarding homosexuality, alcohol, extramarital sex, women's clothing, education, etc., etc.? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 25 August 2014 at 6:59am
Well of course he banned all religions that opposed him! No religion would accept a new regime which considered religion to be the "opiate" of the people. Pol Pot, like all ardent atheistic communists, considered religion as an obstacle to the "revolution".
How did I know you would go this route? I guess I have come to expect the types of arguments an atheist clown would make! I would expect it to say "Common Era" instead of "in the year of our lord", if the Constitution was meant to be an "atheistic" document. In fact, the phrase "Common Era" has been used since at least the early 1700s, so there is no reason why the US Constitution would not have used it if the intention was to keep all references to God out.
Oh, Bozo, Bozo. What will we do with you? "The history of Sunday Closing Laws goes back into United States colonial history and far back into English history. http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag5_user.html#fnb144 - 144 Commonly, the laws require the observance of the Christian Sabbath as a day of rest, although in recent years they have tended to become honeycombed with exceptions. The Supreme Court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to Sunday Closing Laws in McGowan v. Maryland. http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag5_user.html#fnb145 - 145 The Court acknowledged[p.1000]that historically the laws had a religious motivation and were designed to effectuate concepts of Christian theology. However, �n light of the evolution of our Sunday Closing Laws through the centuries, and of their more or less recent emphasis upon secular considerations, it is not difficult to discern that as presently written and administered, most of them, at least, are of a secular rather than of a religious character, and that presently they bear no relationship to establishment of religion. . . .� http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag5_user.html#fnb146 - 146 " ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag5_user.html - http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag5_user.html ) If the Founding Fathers had wanted to make the Constitution an "atheistic" document, they would have avoided using Christian rhetoric. It would be like a Muslim using "anno domini" (in the year of the lord). As a matter of fact, I myself always use "Common Era" (CE) instead of "AD".
Do you mean in western, non-Muslim countries? Sharia law would be applied in a Muslim-majority country. I would support that. But obviously, here in the west, Sharia law cannot be practically applied since Muslims are not the majority. We have to respect the laws of the land. So, as long as the population remains predominantly non-Muslim but Muslim religious practice is not hindered in any way, I have no reason to call for the establishment of Sharia law. In the 20th and 21st centuries of the Common Era ( ), we have seen examples of atheistic tyranny which has led to the mass murder of millions. I know you don't support that, but the point is that atheists have tried to force their views on an unwilling religious populace.------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 25 August 2014 at 8:10pm
"Common Era" may have existed in a few exceptional contexts, but it was distinctly uncommon until the last couple of decades. Even now, many people have no idea what it means. In 1787 it would have produced mostly blank stares and puzzled enquiries. Anno Domini, or A.D, for short, is still the only form used in legal documents as far as I know.
You bolded the wrong sentence. I have fixed it for you.
So you won't force your religious laws on me until you can. I suppose I should be thankful for small mercies, but it doesn't make me any less fearful of what you might do if you could. And it's no comfort at all to a homosexual in Iran or a Saudi woman who doesn't want to wear a hijab or an unmarried pregnant Afghan girl.
But only to achieve some other goal. It's never about atheism; it's about something else. With religious tyranny, religion is the goal. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 26 August 2014 at 9:18am
"Common Era" was used not only in English but in Latin as well since at least the late 1500s. Moreover, the Founding Fathers were educated men and I find it hard to believe that they would have been unfamiliar with the phrase. The 1797 http://books.google.com/books?id=W3xMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA50&dq=common+era&hl=en#v=onepage&q=common%20era&f=false - edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica used the term "common era", so it is pretty clear that it was in use in academic circles. Even if you want to insist that "common era" was "uncommon" and that "anno domini" was the standard form used, it can be argued that if the Founding Fathers had wanted to write an "atheistic" Constitution, then they could have easily written the date without using "in the year of the lord". Documents from that time commonly wrote a date without using the term. For example, a document entitled "Act on Electing Members to the Commons House of Assembly, April 7, 1759" ends like this: "B. Smith, Speaker. In the Council Chamber, the 7th day of April, 1759. Assented to William Henry Lyttelton." ("America's Founding Charters: Primary Documents of Colonial and Revolutionary Era Governance", p. 450).
"The history of Sunday Closing Laws goes back into United States colonial history and far back into English history.144 Commonly, the laws require the observance of the Christian Sabbath as a day of rest, although in recent years they have tended to become honeycombed with exceptions. The Supreme Court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to Sunday Closing Laws in McGowan v. Maryland.145 The Court acknowledged[p.1000]that historically the laws had a religious motivation and were designed to effectuate concepts of Christian theology. However, "in light of the evolution of our Sunday Closing Laws through the centuries, and of their more or less recent emphasis upon secular considerations, it is not difficult to discern that as presently written and administered, most of them, at least, are of a secular rather than of a religious character, and that presently they bear no relationship to establishment of religion. . . .�146" (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag5_user.html) I fixed it further for you. The court made it clear that "secular considerations" were a "more or less recent" development. In your idiocy, you are obviously having trouble reading.
Like I said, I have no reason to call for Sharia law while the population remains overwhelmingly non-Muslim. If present trends continue, Muslims will probably never be the majority and if it ever does occur, it would take a few hundred years at least, so you have nothing to worry about. Meanwhile, if you want to be fearful of the Muslim boogeyman, be my guest! I tend to get a good laugh out of the irrational fear of people like you and believe me, I have met such people before.
That "some other goal" could only be achieved through atheism. The atheist tyrants knew that for their plans to succeed, they had to get rid of religious practice. To that end, they were willing to murder millions of people and hardly blinked while doing it.------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
