Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you are talking about the Founding Fathers, they were mostly Deist and driven by Enlightenment humanism. If you're talking about the small colonies of Christian groups who arrived on US shores. Almost the first thing they did was to pass laws attacking other groups of Christians.
What rights would those be? Saudi Arabia doesn't have the same First Amendment that the US does.
Why stop there? why not just round them all up and put them in camps?
You see, the problem with claiming to be better than your enemies is that you actually have to be better than your enemies... and nobody said that would be easy.
So Saudi Arabia is your new role model... I guess you're right; religious freedom is for chumps.
Jihad means struggle, and I can't see how you respect the Taliban or Al Qaeda with thier ability to intentionally kill civilians to make a statement. Then of course, military leaders have intentionally blown up civilian targets to make a statement. So I guess I can see your viewpoint; the deaths of civilians are justified so long as your statement is understood by the rest. Just like they're willing to restrict freedom of religion against non-Muslims(something not permitted in Islam), you are willing to do the same. Well, you're downright for no Muslim to live in the United States.
Your right, because its lawful doesn't make it right. I think there have been a few countries where it was lawful to kill certain ethnic groups...but it was legal....so it must be ok!
Deportation is much more humane than rounding them up and putting them in camps. Plus camps cost money.
All I am saying is--as of right now--we have Churches and Mosques in America.
In Saudi Arabia--they don't.
Honestly it would be fine with me if we had no Churches in Saudi Arabia if there weren't Mosques in America.
I am for religious freedom for Christians and Jews among other groups.
Okay... if you're not interested in discussing the real world, and responding to things people actually say, as opposed to your own rehearsed talking points, this conversation is going to be both futile and pointless.
Executions cost less than deportations... bullets cost less than planes.
Because most of us in America believe in freedom of religion... it would be refreshing if folks such as yourself got with the program.
Because Saudi Arabia is not America... which seems to be a problem you're looking to solve.
So honestly it would be fine with you if we were more like them... you know, as long as you're going to call yourself "armyman," you should know that real army men swear an oath to defend the Constitution in its entirety... not just the parts they choose to agree with.
Just not for the Muslims... we get it. "One set of rules for us, another set for them," is not one of the principles that made America great.
But your disdain for American principles is your business... enjoy it.
Because I say they don't meet our standard I am wrong, but because you put them in a different group--your right? How does that work?
Germany didn't have the freedoms we enjoyed during WWII--does that mean that the murder of Jews and other "undesireables" was ok? After all, they don't have the first Amendment--so they can't be breaking it.
I don't know, you would have to do a cost analysis on it. You have to think, areas to bury the bodies, that takes time and resources, ammunition and troops, oh and then you maintiance costs on weapons, because weapons will break, trucks to move the people to execution grounds, trucks to take troops there, trucks to haul bodies, shovels to dig graves (or you burn them--in which case that costs money) Safety concerns due to so many dead bodies, etc. Its really just a lot more practical to deport them, or issue a "get out of dodge" warning and give them 2 weeks or an alotted time.
And maybe you forgot the fact that I view them as human--I just want them out of the country, I never said anything about wanting them dead.
Ok I will be sure to smoke dope and maybe make a human sacrifice or two, just so I can express my rights as an American.
What I am saying is--Muslims stick to Islamic countries, and Christians stick to Christian countries.
Don't worry missy I know about the Constitution, that is why I do defend it.
But I also know my Constitutional right to aid in the Amendment process. Or is anyone trying to get the Constitution Amended through legal means a bad guy now?
Ok, lets invite Kali worshipers over, start the Thuggee cult again....Or some Africian tribal religions maybe? Sorry if my disdain for a particular religious group that has espoused global domination is upsetting.
Stop bringing facts into this. Just because Islam is where christianity was 200-300 years ago does not mean we should remind people of the terrible sins of christianity. I mean where are the massive protests from christians against the unbiblical way child abuse scandals within the church are being handled. Oh yeah we just turn a blind eye to that. I'm sure that is the christian thing to do. oops broke the sarcasm detector again!So does Christianity. After Rome became Christian, lots of pagan temples were transformed into churches, usually to the dismay and horror to the local pagans. Likewise, when Christianity came to England (and northern Europe in general), churches and cathedrals were erected on sites where Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons had previously worshipped their gods. Heck, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the holiest site in Christianity, was at first a Roman temple.
Christianity has as much a history of erecting places of worship on others' holy sites as Islam does; Islam may be less discreet about it, but both religions have a history to be guilty about in that respect.
pure opinion and speculation here. When askedI can't believe the nerve of some people, the Muslims who are behind this mosque are dangerous and want to hurt us. this is no accident, its a bold statement to put a mosque feet away from where those twin towers stood. we as Americans have every right to speak out about this disgusting display of evil.
you just quote someone else's opinion. In that opinion piece their conclusion from evidence (and I use that term very loosely) just isn't supported from what is said.Any evidence to support this claim?
do you really think the actions of others should be a good way to judge right from wrong??? lets face it if you think actions of other countries is a good measuring stick then perhaps we should bring back more widespread slavery than what we have nowI wonder why there hasn't been more articles on why Churches aren't allowed in the ENTIRE country of Saudi Arabia......
"Let there be a Mosque in America when there are Churches in Mecca."
Really! I didn't know the Indians were christian. I don't believe they were and I doubt any expert on the subject would back you up on that claim.We do have much more religious freedom compared to most of the world, but there are always limits. Remember it was Christians who founded America, so naturally there is a bit more inclination toward the Judeo-Christian faith system.
Actually you don't have that right unless you change the basic documents that your entire system is based on like the constitution and bill of rights. If you go down that path be very careful they may take away your right to be a christian one day.I just feel that we should stop the followers of Mohamet from entering our country, and kick out those who do adhear to Islam. Islam is a threat, in my view. If Islamic countries want to ban Christianity--that is their right as a nation, just as it is America's right to ban Islam. Why blur lines? We know where each other stand, each one on the other side of the line--with drawn swords.
and you really think if muslims didn't want it to go ahead then it would????Yeah it was a Coptic Chrisitan lawyer that started the ball rolling, not some lovey dovey Mohametean......
"The decision was a response to a complaint filed by Coptic lawyer Naguib Gobrael, head of Egyptian Union for Human Rights...."
Just like the Crusades, it was only a small gro--oh, no it wasn't! It was SANCTIONED BY THE POPE!
And here, your argument breaks down. Interesting, isn't it, that the fourth Crusade was against Christians? Go back and review the history. The Pope has never been the patriarch of all of Christendom. As a matter of fact, at the Great Schism, there were four other patriarchs who didn't go along with Rome (yet still have communion with each other). The teaching of history in the West is severely lacking, and completely and conveniently ignores loads of things.
I just realized I ranted at you- it is a pet peeve of mine that has nothing to do with you.
Perhaps as you said it was how it is taught. Here in my part of the world we are taught that the Crusades were papal-sanctioned against the "infidels".
Did Urban not give his famous Council of Clermont calling them to war? I'm not saying all Christians answered, but a large number did. Then they fought among themselves in the fourth crusade for reasons I'm still not sure of.
Urban did, but Christendom was much more than Rome. Considering the Great Schism occurred in 1054 (though there were factors that preceded the formal break) and the Fourth Crusade, in particular, began in 1202- one must understand who the particular Christians were that Urban was calling to action. In effect, it was only those Christians who were in his See (which was only a drop in the bucket). The other Sees were not even in communion with Rome at that point (though they were with each other)- and communion is and was everything to the Church. The disagreement between the other Christian patriarchs and Rome was such that they considered themselves to practically be following different religions (if one looks at it simply- it isn't quite that simple). It is and was a serious enough issue that we're still not united by communion. (As an Orthodox Christian, I couldn't go to a Roman Catholic Church and receive communion, much less any other type of Christian church that is one of the many schisms from Roman Catholicism- which is practically all of the denominations one hears about and is familiar with.) From an Orthodox perspective (no offense to anyone) Rome went rogue.
The biggest issue I see is that people are only taught that there was the Early Church and then there was Rome, and this is simply not the case.
Ahh...fair enough.
What about when the Church was basically in control of the former Roman Empire? Were they united then when they had control then and ran roughshod over the Roman Pagan's rights to worship? Or during the fall of the Empire, or were there schisms before that?
just curious, is all.
Love the double standard. The Koran only justifies killing people IT regards as being law breakers as well.The people that are commanded to be destoryed generally broke the law--wereas--with Islam, it is merely a matter of taking over non-muslims.
Of course not. Nor do I believe that Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Ba'haism or voodoo are. But that isn't valid grounds to restrict the rights of followers of those religions in a secular society.Since the rise of Mohamet, Islam has been spreading itself by the sword. I am not saying that Christendom hasn't done the same--only that Islam is wrong. Do you, as a Christian, believe that Islam is a way to eternal life?
The 4th Crusade was raised to be an assault on Egypt. However, once the Venetians organising the thing had their hands on their backer's money, the Venetians more or less announced that they were off to Constantinople instead. And the backers and French nobility who'd already signed up stood to loose massive fortunes if they didn't go. So, they went.And here, your argument breaks down. Interesting, isn't it, that the fourth Crusade was against Christians? Go back and review the history. The Pope has never been the patriarch of all of Christendom. As a matter of fact, at the Great Schism, there were four other patriarchs who didn't go along with Rome (yet still have communion with each other). The teaching of history in the West is severely lacking, and completely and conveniently ignores loads of things.
I just realized I ranted at you- it is a pet peeve of mine that has nothing to do with you.
And how unfamiliar the poster in question actually is with the document in question.Homosexuality is not, sodomy is.
But thank you for highlighting how out of touch the UCMJ is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?