[Vision2020] True Muslims and True Americans
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 12 12:23:55 PDT 2006
That same Old Testament law is where the anti-homosexual pronouncements
come from, so I just assumed it was fair game. Or are there some New
Testament laws against that? I'm not a biblical expert.
So what are you trying to argue? I'm trying to argue that anybody can
practice their religion as they see fit provided it doesn't infringe on
another person's rights and that they can absolutely believe whatever
they wish no matter what it is. Isn't that what the First Amendment is
all about? Or did I misread it? Are you trying to say that anyone
should be able to practice their religion even when it infringes on
another person's rights? What do you do when some other religion tries
to infringe on your rights? Or are you trying to say that it's ok for
*your* religion *only* to be able to be practiced? How do you argue
that one in a free society?
Why does it bother you that I may believe differently than yourself? I
have reasons for my beliefs, backed up by personal observations and
experiences. Presumably so do you. The state of my soul is upon my
shoulders, not yours. It's between me, Christ, Buddha, Allah, and Odin
and whomever else. Why not try to live in a society where we each
respect that the other should be able to believe as they wish, instead
of trying to assert one religion over the other? This includes the
practices of the religion, except where they infringe on the others
rights. My veneer may be running thin, but that seems both wise and
agreeable to me. What objections do you have with it?
Paul
Dick Sherwin wrote:
>Paul R. writes: "we wouldn't let christians stone me to death for having
>dabbled with the occult or for wearing a shirt made of two different fabrics
>either."
>___________________________________________
>
>Paul misses the whole point of respecting the right of any religious group
>to actually "practice" their religion. He also continues to assert Old
>Testament teachings of the law into New Testament Christianity.
>
>I don't think Paul is as spiteful toward Christianity as Nick Gier, who
>attempts to hide his true feelings behind his intellect, but he still finds
>contempt with it.
>
>I believe the Princess has pretty much summed up all of this in previous
>posts. It is easy to understand but Paul and Nick, two people who
>admittedly do not believe in Christianity continue to assert their dominance
>over the conversation, believing their intelluctual status makes them
>experts over that which they have rejected.
>
>While I respect their right to believe as they wish, their thin veneer layer
>of "we respect everyone's right to worship as they please" is wearing even
>thinner. They will still be waiting for the video proof of Christianity, in
>deference of believing through faith, when Christ returns for the final
>judgment. Hell will be filled with intelluctuals.
>
>God bless,
>
>Dick S.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 9:15 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] True Muslims and True Americans
>
>
>
>
>>What I wrote in point number 3 was poorly written. I was talking about
>>those actions which are illegal, not all actions associated with a
>>religion. If the society that wanted to build pyramids and sacrifice
>>people with obsidian knives opened up a chapter here in Moscow, we
>>couldn't let them kill people. That's not singling them out; we
>>wouldn't let christians stone me to death for having dabbled with the
>>occult or for wearing a shirt made of two different fabrics either.
>>
>>Is the act of stopping a particular religion's members from breaking the
>>law disrespecting that religion? I'd say that it isn't as long as the
>>law itself was not designed specifically to counter that religion and
>>had society's best interests in mind. Laws against murder are already
>>on the books so the above scenario would not be singling out that
>>religion. If there was a law against the Jesus Fish or something, then
>>that would be disrespect for that religion. It's basically "do what you
>>like until you affect other's rights".
>>
>>Society should only step in when the rights of others are being
>>affected. Such as the right to continued life. Otherwise it should
>>leave well enough alone. In my opinion, anyway.
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>Taro Tanaka wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>[[ 3. Respecting actions taken that derive from a particular belief.
>>>
>>>
>Here
>
>
>>>is where the line really is. If a Satanist sacrifices someone, they've
>>>crossed the line and should be punished. If a Satanist is known to be
>>>about to sacrifice someone, they should be stopped and tried in a court
>>>of law. That goes for Muslims who interpret the Qu'ran to say that they
>>>should kill Americans as well as Christians who think God has told them
>>>to kill an abortion doctor. If you cross this line in the other
>>>direction, you are into the realm of Thought Crimes. If there is one
>>>inalienable right, it's the right to think what you want to think. The
>>>inside of your head is sacrosanct. It's when thoughts become actions
>>>that society has the right to intervene. ]]
>>>
>>>Paul, that's not called respecting someone's religious beliefs; that's
>>>called goring someone's ox, and I'm all for it. "Freedom of religion"
>>>
>>>
>means
>
>
>>>freedom to PRACTICE one's religion. Obviously, it is not possible for a
>>>society to allow religious freedom for all religions. If some Mexican
>>>immigrants want to build a big pyramid in New Mexico and use obsidian
>>>
>>>
>knives
>
>
>>>to cut out people's beating hearts at the apex, that will obviously
>>>
>>>
>conflict
>
>
>>>with the religious beliefs of all modern Americans. "But our gods command
>>>
>>>
>us
>
>
>>>to sacrifice to them," they will protest. "Even the people we sacrifice
>>>agree that their deaths are necessary." To that any reasonable person --
>>>even Nick Gier, I presume -- would reply, "Your so-called gods are full
>>>
>>>
>of
>
>
>>>sh*t and you're under arrest." But even as we say that, we have to
>>>
>>>
>recognize
>
>
>>>that entire societies based on such practices existed for many centuries.
>>>
>>>
>It
>
>
>>>is possible to build a society based on a religion that cuts out people's
>>>beating hearts with an obsidian knife. But it is not possible for such a
>>>society to continue to exist once certain other religions -- especially
>>>Christianity -- start to permeate that society. Because certain other
>>>religions, expecially Christianity, would declare war on such practices.
>>>
>>>
>It
>
>
>>>is a war to the death -- the death of one religious system or the other.
>>>
>>>
>The
>
>
>>>two religious systems cannot coexist. And that is precisely why there are
>>>
>>>
>no
>
>
>>>longer any societies based on cutting out people's beating hearts with
>>>obsidian knives.
>>>
>>>That was a pretty extreme example, but it illustrates the point. Freedom
>>>
>>>
>of
>
>
>>>religion is the freedom to PRACTICE one's religion, and no society can
>>>
>>>
>grant
>
>
>>>full freedom to all religions. So anyone who says he respects all
>>>
>>>
>religious
>
>
>>>beliefs is, for one reaon or another, not telling the truth. It is simply
>>>
>>>
>a
>
>
>>>fact that nobody respects all religious beliefs.
>>>
>>>I think this is as good a time as any to point out one of the faulty
>>>
>>>
>hidden
>
>
>>>assumptions at work when people try to distinguish between intellectual
>>>assent to a certain set of propositions on the one hand, and actually
>>>
>>>
>living
>
>
>>>in terms of one's beliefs on the other. I bring this up because both Paul
>>>and Nick have spoken along the lines that anyone is free to believe
>>>
>>>
>anything
>
>
>>>they want, and that is what "respecting religious beliefs" is all about;
>>>
>>>
>but
>
>
>>>people might be stepping over the line into forbidden territory if they
>>>
>>>
>try
>
>
>>>to actually put those beliefs into practice.
>>>
>>>This is called gnosticism. It is the view that limits religion to the
>>>
>>>
>realm
>
>
>>>of ideas and concepts. But the Bible rejects that view vehemently. The
>>>epistle of James says:
>>>
>>>'. . . faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself. Yes, a man will say,
>>>"You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without works, and
>>>
>>>
>I
>
>
>>>by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one. You do
>>>well. The demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to know,
>>>vain man, that faith apart from works is dead? Wasn't Abraham our father
>>>justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You
>>>see that faith worked with his works, and by works faith was perfected;
>>>
>>>
>and
>
>
>>>the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was
>>>accounted to him as righteousness;" and he was called the friend of God.
>>>
>>>
>You
>
>
>>>see then that by works, a man is justified, and not only by faith.'
>>>
>>>Here James is saying very clearly that if mere intellectual assent to
>>>certain propositions is all that is called for, the demons know all those
>>>things very well. They are able to pay intellectuall assent to the
>>>truthfulness of the creedal statements of Christendom, but their
>>>intellectual assent is not accompanied by obedience, and it is obedience
>>>that is demanded. Why are Christians obedient? Because they have faith
>>>
>>>
>that
>
>
>>>God demands and shall reward their obedience. In other words, part of the
>>>Christian's intellectual assent is that mere intellectual assent is not
>>>enough. This is a religious belief that is bound to put someone on a
>>>collision course with folks like Nick Gier. Whenever Nick Gier lives out
>>>
>>>
>his
>
>
>>>religious beliefs, my ox is getting gored, at least potentially. And
>>>whenever I live out my religious beliefs, Nick Gier's ox is getting
>>>
>>>
>gored,
>
>
>>>at least potentially. I don't see any reason to apologize for this state
>>>
>>>
>of
>
>
>>>affairs or to pretend that it doesn't exist. I believe in calling a spade
>>>
>>>
>a
>
>
>>>spade. It simply is not possible to equally respect all religious
>>>
>>>
>beliefs.
>
>
>>>-- Princess Sushitushi
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
>>>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>>>
>>>=======================================================
>>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>=======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>=======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060812/666c5b3b/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list