“I asked myself how it was possible that those who, like me, sincerely and boldly called for a “moderate Islam,” assuming the responsibility of exposing themselves in the first person in denouncing Islamic extremism and terrorism, ended up being sentenced to death in the name of Islam on the basis of the Quran. I was forced to see that, beyond the contingency of the phenomenon of Islamic extremism and terrorism that has appeared on a global level, the root of evil is inherent in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictive.”
syf – “The concept of separation of church and state was first articulated by Christ and practised in the US Constitution, where state religion is prohibited.”
Umm…no, by Moses, actually – unless you want to get all trinitarian and inspirational on me. And the “concept” was only as regards the partitioning of duties. The “state” was commended for dictating the laws of God. Now, don’t go and do the OT/NT, things are different now, shimmy. Go read Romans 15 and 1 Peter 2. What was dictated was the “how”…
…which leads us to “state religion”, which is permitted, even assumed, in the US constitution. It’s congress that shall make no law…Individual states were free to keep their state-supported churches.
Tenbris:
OK, then.
Is there an approved state religion in the US and a persecution of all others who do not adhere to that ‘state religion?’
Moses, eh? Can you point me to where that’s clearly articulated.
Must have missed it, or else Christ was only confirming the concept.
That render onto Ceasar and render onto God passage was said in a direct question posed to him by the Sanhedrin, which purportedly was the guardian of truth.
So, if it was a Mosaic revelation, it certainly was not understood in practise by about 32 AD.
Oh God …. a theology debate ….. for Christ’s sake!
tenny
I’ve read about ten or so stories from different sources. None of them support your contention.
Do you follow what goes on in the Vatican? It was a REGULAR type event.
Have you ever read anything written by BenedictXVI? It might enlighten you as to his motivation. He definitely doesn’t need My help.
Your ‘proof’ for your assertion merely makes my point. It shows Allam’s pleasure in knowing these men and what they stand for. It was an important event for HIM and he was pleased to have men he admired in attendance. ‘Natch. It doesn’t go to show any ‘political agenda’ or subverting of the validity of the sacrament by the Pope.
Obviously you’d rather chase your tail then know anything real about the church or its spiritual leader. (Read something he’s written.)
Enough time wasted on this! Pax.
Knight 99
“Hero’s of Humanity” scientists can be Christian too. Sir Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal being the ones that come to my mind. Both were known in their day to the general population as theologians, (Math and science where concerns of the rich.) Blaise Pascal was born wealthy, was a mathematical genius, “Pascal’s triangle”, “Pascal”s language.” he discovered the vacuum and hydraulics. After which he coined the phrase “All Men are born with a God shaped vacuum in their hearts” He invented the first bus system and then donated if to the people of Paris. Pascal died a destitute man because he gave his wealth away. He wasn’t following the Church of the day, he was following her master.
tenny
I’ve read about ten or so stories from different sources. None of them support your contention.
Do you follow what goes on in the Vatican? It was a REGULAR type event.
Have you ever read anything written by BenedictXVI? It might enlighten you as to his motivation. He definitely doesn’t need My help.
Your ‘proof’ for your assertion merely makes my point. It shows Allam’s pleasure in knowing these men and what they stand for. It was an important event for HIM and he was pleased to have men he admired in attendance. ‘Natch. It doesn’t go to show any ‘political agenda’ or subverting of the validity of the sacrament by the Pope.
Obviously you’d rather chase your tail then know anything real about the church or its spiritual leader. (Read something he’s written.)
Enough time wasted on this! Pax.
Knight:
There is no fundamental conflict between science and religion.
Both seek knowledge to explain. Science can explain the measurable, religion explains the mysterious.
There is no ‘scientific’ answer to ‘why are we here?’ or ‘what is our purpose.’
That is the starting point of religious exploration.
Most scientists before the theory of evolution did attribute their important discoveries to the inspiration they received from God.
In any event, a strong understanding of the inexplicable gave scientists the inner strength and confidence to pursue answers to which they could measure.
If a person has no discernable understanding of purpose, which helps focus his energies, it’s unclear how he could even start a voyage to explain the physically explainable.
Jeanette>
“Hero’s of Humanity” scientists can be Christian too”
Of course they can. My point made to Karl> was that no one group holds a special privilege as scientists, humanitarians or dictators. Born rich or poor.
set you free>
“There is no fundamental conflict between science and religion”.
I would agree for some that statement is true but for others it is not.
“If a person has no discernable understanding of purpose, which helps focus his energies, it’s unclear how he could even start a voyage to explain the physically explainable”.
I’m not sure what you mean with this statement? I’m assuming you present “understanding of purpose” as a Religious belief system, which obviously is not true to me. Otherwise civilization would never have happened. Children are born into this world every day and receive no religious instruction throughout their lives functioning and discovering quite well.
I don’t really want to get sucked into a religious argument of why we are here. Suffice to say I do believe religion has always played an important role in human societies. I just wouldn’t favor one over the other of the major religions (The death cult of Islam excluded) as each has its place in the society that shaped it.
svf – you’re eating into work time, but just to close off the conversation:
Capital S – states may establish state-financed churches, congress (i.e., the feds) may not. A state religion does not imply persecution (Did you know the dutch have a state religion?).
As for the foundation of the separate duties of state and church, see Numbers 16:36 – 40
OMMAG – very droll
lwestin – Sigh. OK. Pax.
Knight 99
You misunderstand me. I am not trying to vindicate atrocities committed in the name of God, nor am I trying to imply that all atheists are bad people. I am merely pointing out that to compare religion at it worst to atheism at its best is a logical fallacy. It is an argument that belongs only in the self assured orthodoxy of one’s sophomore year, and one would hope that a more humble and nuanced approach to things of this kind would emerge with further reflection.
Also, to say that dictatorships like Stalin’s USSR have the effect of “… becoming the gods of their realm …” is a nifty attempt at a dodge by hiding behind the skirts of Christian theology in order to bolster an argument somehow exonerating atheists from the crimes which have grown out of their atheism. As a Christian I would say that Stalin in effect made himself to be like God, and that that is a danger of atheism. When a dictator believes that he will not have to answer for his actions in this life, except in this life, he runs the risk of becoming a paranoid tyrant who will not blink at liquidating masses of people to serve his own ends, or to hold on to power.
But for an atheist (or an agnostic) to imply that the excesses of an atheist dictator are not due to his atheism, but are somehow linked however tenuously to the concept of God is a dodge, and nothing more.
My point again: I am weary of atheists who trot out the “so many atrocities committed in the name of God” argument when seeking to discredit religion, but who ignore the atrocities committed in the name atheistic utopianism.
Karl:
I’m with you on this one.
The utopian totalitarians of the 20th century were, by and large, atheists.
They, at least did not adhere to faith principles established in the 14th century Eastern Christian churches under what is known as the Hesychast Controversy.
Much of the utopian/atheist viewpoint was inspired by the discredited science contained in Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Many sources (I could quote them if needed) confirm the early Marxist leadership and the National Socialist movement saw a way to apply the flawed science into ‘evolving’ humanity.
In the case of the National Socialists, it was the apparatus of the state which hastened ‘natural selection.’
Every one of these systems fail on one basic level, enforcement of their theories.
In their attempts to control and perfect others (since they believe themselves to be in an already superior state), the all have their final solutions … and that is to kill those who disagree with them.
Ignorance and feelings presented as legitimate facts never ceases to amaze me.
Dave,
Your POV is ignorant. You know zilch about what you present as fact. Your conclusion that the Christian God is nothing more or less than Greek gods attests to this.
Ok. You are an athiest. So? You’ve read Hitchens. So? If you are to participate in a debate you might want to gain some knowledge in order to present a rational, fact based argument. As well, gaining knowledge will at least make your arguments interesting, if not change your POV entirely.
BTW, did anybody attack your chosen faith in no God, prior to your diatribe?
Karl>
Ok I see your point more clearly now. I also agree that most published atheists do use religion as a scapegoat and vilify religion as evil itself. They then become in a way what they claim to protest a narrow minded religion of non religion.
In my experience the most vocal of any individual or group or are the one’s that don’t practice what they preach and tend to be the first to point fingers and blame others for things that have never touched their lives, accusations and false witness.
The overall point I had made was that dictatorships that commit atrocities and genocide could come from anywhere, regardless of the proclaimed faith or lack of it. As free western societies we need to guard against totalitarianism at all times and never be under an illusion that any one group holding absolute power can be trusted anytime.
Upon viewing the article about the Pope, and some of the comments here, I’m reminded of two people.
This first is the old Jewish guy who pulled down his pants and told the SS firing squad “Kiss my ASS!”
The second is the Italian guy who was the subject of an Islamist beheading video. “I’ll show you how an Italian dies!!!”
The Pope just delivered the same message to Islam. Cleaned up, of course, but that was the biggest, baddest call-out since George Bush said BRING. IT. ON!
I’m no Catholic, but I’ve got to say F***kin’ A on the Pope! Way to have the Balls of Steel baby, and I hope you issued live ammo to the Swiss Guard.
Mohammed certainly was not a Christian bishop, or anything we would recognize as a Christian. The Koran manifests no understanding or knowledge of what we today would consider basic Christian teaching, although it does have a great deal of lore that comes out of Christian heresies and post-Christian religions, notably Mandaeism or Persian Gnosticism.