Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Question of importance Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 3
Author Message
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 22 August 2014 at 12:01pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

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.


LOL 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". 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

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.


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? Shocked

Originally posted by Ron Webb

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.


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)

I wouldn't expect an "entirely atheistic" document to specifically state "in the year of our Lord"!  LOL

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.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

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.


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)

IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1790
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 24 August 2014 at 7:53pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

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?

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.

I wouldn't expect an "entirely atheistic" document to specifically state "in the year of our Lord"!

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.

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.

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. LOL

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.

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.
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 25 August 2014 at 6:59am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

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.


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". 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

o 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.


LOL 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. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

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. LOL


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.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, “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. . . .”146" (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". 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

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.?


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 (Wink), 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)

IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1790
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 25 August 2014 at 8:10pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

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.

"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.

"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)

You bolded the wrong sentence.  I have fixed it for you. Wink

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.

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.

In the 20th and 21st centuries of the Common Era (Wink), 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.

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.
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 26 August 2014 at 9:18am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

"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.


"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 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).


Originally posted by Ron Webb

You bolded the wrong sentence.  I have fixed it for you. Wink
.

"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.  Wink

The court made it clear that "secular considerations" were a "more or less recent" development.  In your idiocy, you are obviously having trouble reading.  LOL

Originally posted by Ron Webb

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


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. Wink

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. LOL

Originally posted by Ron Webb

But only to achieve some other goal.  It's never about atheism; it's about something else.  With religious tyranny, religion is the goal.
 

LOL 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)

IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 3
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com