4 of 6
4
Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law?
Posted: 12 August 2013 05:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3215
Joined  2011-08-15

In reality the KKK was started by the Democrat Party after the Civil War and targeted Republicans, both black and white.  Over three thousand blacks were lynched, while over one thousand white Republicans were lynched by this creation of the Democrat Party for political reasons.  They are credited with opposing and eventually ending the efforts of the Radical Republicans that were calling for equal rights for black, including the right to vote.  Because of their efforts, equal rights for blacks had to wait for decades.  And please don’t tell me today’s Democrats are yesterday’s Republicans.  That always makes me laugh.

Here you go again promoting revisionist history and generalizations Lilly. NO, the Klan had nothing to do with the Democratic party Post Bellum. What began as an ex Confederate officer’s club founded by Gen’l Nathan B. Forrest (a former slave trader) grew to become a reactionary group to keep African-Americans in their place socially and politically. It was only one of several all white ex Confederate run organizations with the same goal in mind. President Grant officially outlawed it after the passage of the Force Acts. Historically there were two Klans, the one I mentioned and the second formed at Stone Mountain Ga. In 1919. You’re probably referring to that one. It formed as a knee jerk movement opposing not only African-Americans but immigrants as well. This sparked a series of race riots beginning in Memphis and spreading to Detroit. But once again it had nothing to do with the leadership of the Democratic party although it did have influence in state and local elections, at least until the late 20’s when it began to die out.

And yes,the Dem. party in the South at least WAS conservative. The flip from conservative to moderate and liberal happened during the Roosevelt era. But, even then each party had political wings. Even the Republicans pre and post War had a conservative faction. So it wasn’t all as cut and dried as it is today. At least you’re right about one thing though. Today’s Dems. Are nothing like the Republicans of the post War era. Most Republicans then were just as prejudiced as their Dem. counterparts. “Radical Republicans” we’re only radical in one respect, slavery. Most believed in it’s abolition for economic reasons and not as a moral issue. The “radicals” wouldn’t have been able to pass any legislation without the moderate Republican vote (see Thaddeus Stevens’efforts).


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2013 06:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3215
Joined  2011-08-15

Christians are citizens of this country and have the right according to the secular law of the US to take part in the political process and influence the laws we all live by.  They have the right to vote in people who represent them at all levels of government—just like everyone else.  Atheists aren’t the only ones with rights in this country, and they aren’t the only ones who have the right to push their agendas and influence laws.  They do seem to be most vocal in trying to take away the rights of those they disagree with, as if no one else has a right to vote and have an opinion.  Why are atheists so dictatorial?  Why can’t they allow others to have an opinion and exercise their right to vote?  This is not based on Christian law of any kind.  This is because of the secular law we live by in the US put into place by a majority Christian society.

I’m in total agreement with your first statement. Xtians do have that right, as do we all to vote in individuals who mirror our philosophies and beliefs so long as it doesn’t infringe on the Constututional rights of others but the neoconservatives have since the early 90’s been pushing their reactionary agenda, clearly composed of White, evangelical, mainly Protestant, and socially conservative views on those of us who aren’t and we are a growing majority. For example, most voters favor Roe v. Wade but neocons who push the xtian social agenda are finding ways to push back by arbitrarily closing abortion clinics, thus taking away a woman’s right to control her own body (a guaranteed right under the 14th Amendment). How many Atheist governors are pushing their agenda to close down churches or another church affiliated organization? None. How many rights have xtians had stripped from them by Atheists who gerrymandered districts to retain control of their local legislatures and push their Atheist agendas? None. how many atheists political leaders are dictating your right to vote or hold public office? None. And now I’m confused by your last statements; but the xtian leaders in the South, you know the ones who burned crosses and wore hoods actively tried to prevent people from voting! And we’ve already dispelled the myth concerning the founding fathers, and those whom you consider xtians post Rev War had no resemblence to xtian fundamentalists today. Secular means NOT religious. You can’t have it both ways.

 

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2013 11:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
DarronS - 12 August 2013 04:03 AM

Judge orders parents to change baby’s name

A judge in the US has ordered a baby’s first name to be changed from Messiah to Martin, arguing that the only true messiah is Jesus Christ, reports say.

So much for Christians not promoting their law.


A father can’t even names his son anymore. Women neither. Tsk, tsk.

“Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Regards
DL

[ Edited: 12 August 2013 11:13 AM by Greatest I am ]
Image Attachments
black_sheep.jpg
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2013 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Greatest I am - 12 August 2013 11:11 AM
DarronS - 12 August 2013 04:03 AM

Judge orders parents to change baby’s name

A judge in the US has ordered a baby’s first name to be changed from Messiah to Martin, arguing that the only true messiah is Jesus Christ, reports say.

So much for Christians not promoting their law.


A father can’t even names his son anymore. Women neither. Tsk, tsk.

“Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Regards
DL

In my opinion, it was an invalid opinion.  Parents should be able to name their children anything they want to name them. Of course they may be harming the child’s future by giving him or her a ridiculous name, but it’s up to them.  Forcing people to choose only certain names is a strong component in Christianity,especially Catholic Christianity. When the child reaches 18,  he can legally change his name.  If he’s younger he can still petition the court for a name change with an adult to represent his interests.  It doesn’t have to be a parent.

I expect this ridiculous decision to be overturned soon. It has to be unconstitutional.


Kids always shorten names.  I wonder if this child would be called Mess or Messy. That should certainly help him out.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2013 03:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

On an interview with the mother today on public radio, the comment was made that the judge’s opinion was based on, as he said, “There is only one messiah - Jesus Christ”.  Nice that he understood the separation of church and state.  cool grin

As an aside, from the mother’s conversation, I’d guess she probably made it to the second grade.  (Love that southern hill-folk twang).

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2013 04:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3215
Joined  2011-08-15

In my opinion, it was an invalid opinion.  Parents should be able to name their children anything they want to name them. Of course they may be harming the child’s future by giving him or her a ridiculous name, but it’s up to them.  Forcing people to choose only certain names is a strong component in Christianity,especially Catholic Christianity. When the child reaches 18,  he can legally change his name.  If he’s younger he can still petition the court for a name change with an adult to represent his interests.  It doesn’t have to be a parent.

I wonder how the judge would react to Frank Zappa naming his kids dweezle and moon unit?  LOL


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2013 07:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Occam. - 12 August 2013 03:42 PM

On an interview with the mother today on public radio, the comment was made that the judge’s opinion was based on, as he said, “There is only one messiah - Jesus Christ”.  Nice that he understood the separation of church and state.  cool grin

As an aside, from the mother’s conversation, I’d guess she probably made it to the second grade.  (Love that southern hill-folk twang).

Occam

Second grade!  Do you,think she went that far? Looks like the kid has more than one strike against him.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2013 07:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Thevillageatheist - 12 August 2013 04:27 PM

In my opinion, it was an invalid opinion.  Parents should be able to name their children anything they want to name them. Of course they may be harming the child’s future by giving him or her a ridiculous name, but it’s up to them.  Forcing people to choose only certain names is a strong component in Christianity,especially Catholic Christianity. When the child reaches 18,  he can legally change his name.  If he’s younger he can still petition the court for a name change with an adult to represent his interests.  It doesn’t have to be a parent.

I wonder how the judge would react to Frank Zappa naming his kids dweezle and moon unit?  LOL


Cap’t Jack

Rock stars and celebrities in general get a pass.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2013 01:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
Lois - 12 August 2013 12:09 PM
Greatest I am - 12 August 2013 11:11 AM
DarronS - 12 August 2013 04:03 AM

Judge orders parents to change baby’s name

A judge in the US has ordered a baby’s first name to be changed from Messiah to Martin, arguing that the only true messiah is Jesus Christ, reports say.

So much for Christians not promoting their law.


A father can’t even names his son anymore. Women neither. Tsk, tsk.

“Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Regards
DL

In my opinion, it was an invalid opinion.  Parents should be able to name their children anything they want to name them. Of course they may be harming the child’s future by giving him or her a ridiculous name, but it’s up to them.  Forcing people to choose only certain names is a strong component in Christianity,especially Catholic Christianity. When the child reaches 18,  he can legally change his name.  If he’s younger he can still petition the court for a name change with an adult to represent his interests.  It doesn’t have to be a parent.

I expect this ridiculous decision to be overturned soon. It has to be unconstitutional.


Kids always shorten names.  I wonder if this child would be called Mess or Messy. That should certainly help him out.

Lois

 

I like your thinking.

Those two names fit men to a T. So my wife would say.

Except for Women’s bath room. Then she would apply it to women.


Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 August 2013 07:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  975
Joined  2005-01-14

The other day I was channel surfing and came across a sermon by John Hagee, the pastor of one of those Texas megachurches.  He was telling his congregation that they did not have to obey laws that were not based on the Bible.  He went on to say that anyone who proposes a law not based on the Bible was either ignorant or a Satan-worshipper, in which case Christians didn’t have to listen to a thing he said.  It was pretty clear he was talking about “Obamacare”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2013 02:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14
Greatest I am - 12 August 2013 11:11 AM
DarronS - 12 August 2013 04:03 AM

Judge orders parents to change baby’s name

A judge in the US has ordered a baby’s first name to be changed from Messiah to Martin, arguing that the only true messiah is Jesus Christ, reports say.

So much for Christians not promoting their law.


A father can’t even names his son anymore. Women neither. Tsk, tsk.

“Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Regards
DL

I think it should be noted that this is a news sources. Not an academics one.

Now granted, that doesn’t mean the story is false.  It just means we need to be careful about it.


With regards to the “one messiah arguement”, messiah means “annointed one”. There were many annointed people in history.


I wonder if catholicism would even prohibit that name anyway.

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2013 02:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14
Greatest I am - 30 July 2013 05:20 PM

Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law?

Some Muslim communities run with Sharia law. Other nations with a high Muslim population promote Sharia. It would seem from this phenomenon that Muslim law can be used to run a society as it does so in a few countries.

Actually, its not that simple Phillip Giraldi (former CIA agent) has written

Promoting fear of Shariah law is essentially a red herring. There are more than 50 predominantly Muslim countries in the world, and, while most have elements of Shariah in their civil and family law, only two have it as their criminal codes. ... The countries that do not have Shariah as their criminal codes have modeled their laws on European and American models, some borrowing from Roman law and others from British common law.

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/04/03/the-islamophobia-excuse/

At best, one can look the crime rates of ““shariah-crime-policy””  countries.  Yet, since shariah isn’t implemented in other aspects of life, judging the country as a whole will be extremely difficult.
Here is also an interesting documentary in this regards.
http://vimeo.com/14121737

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2013 12:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  21
Joined  2013-09-01
Greatest I am - 30 July 2013 05:20 PM

Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law?

Some Muslim communities run with Sharia law. Other nations with a high Muslim population promote Sharia. It would seem from this phenomenon that Muslim law can be used to run a society as it does so in a few countries.

I know of no country that uses Christian or biblical law and have not heard of any Christian effort to have their law accepted in their nation.

This indicates that either Muslims are more religious than Christians, or Christians know that their laws would never be accepted as the law of the land.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of nations have rejected both sets of religious laws for a more secular approach to law and governance.

Briefly—-

Which of these three sets of laws do you think are superior and why?

Regards
DL

Noetics
The questions to ponder in this regard are:
1. Is Koran a Religious or political txt or both?
2. Has there been any Nation other than the Nation of Israel of the Old Testament (OT) under the Divine Signature of the Shekinah?
3. Is it valid or legal to apply the Old Testament as the Law of any Land without that visible Signature or its equivalent?
4. Is the Muslim zeal to establish Sharia Law in the West a reaction to the perceived notion that the West is run by the Talmudic Laws? For example: No Fault Divorce, Rule by Stare Decisis not by the Constitution [ similar to Not the Tanakh (OT) but the Talmud which is Rabbinical INTERPRETATION of the OT], justification of every human aberration by Rabbinical Interpretations etc..]
5. Islam’s high recognition of the Prophet Jesus vis-à-vis Talmud’s explicit (and a few obscene) hostility and hellish condemnation of Jesus and the followers of Jesus adds more zeal for the Sharia.

Noetics

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2013 03:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Greatest I am - 13 August 2013 01:17 PM
Lois - 12 August 2013 12:09 PM
Greatest I am - 12 August 2013 11:11 AM
DarronS - 12 August 2013 04:03 AM

Judge orders parents to change baby’s name

A judge in the US has ordered a baby’s first name to be changed from Messiah to Martin, arguing that the only true messiah is Jesus Christ, reports say.

So much for Christians not promoting their law.


A father can’t even names his son anymore. Women neither. Tsk, tsk.

“Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Regards
DL

In my opinion, it was an invalid opinion.  Parents should be able to name their children anything they want to name them. Of course they may be harming the child’s future by giving him or her a ridiculous name, but it’s up to them.  Forcing people to choose only certain names is a strong component in Christianity,especially Catholic Christianity. When the child reaches 18,  he can legally change his name.  If he’s younger he can still petition the court for a name change with an adult to represent his interests.  It doesn’t have to be a parent.

I expect this ridiculous decision to be overturned soon. It has to be unconstitutional.


Kids always shorten names.  I wonder if this child would be called Mess or Messy. That should certainly help him out.

Lois

 

I like your thinking.

Those two names fit men to a T. So my wife would say.

Except for Women’s bath room. Then she would apply it to women.

 

Regards
DL

Yes, well, in this day and age, a female could be named Messiah, too.wink

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2013 05:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  21
Joined  2013-09-01

The name Martin is very common for both Christians and Jews alike. The Judge’s rule may reflect anti-Jesus (Messiah) sentiments more than the very unlikely pro-Christian.
Noetics

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 6
4