I don't see the bible specifically mentioned there either, so it doesn't mention the bible or the Quran specifically. According to my understanding Muslims, Jehovah’s witnesses and Christians do not worship the "same God", as Christians believe in the trinity, where the father, the son, and the Holy spirit are one being, and that Jesus is the son. Jehovah’s witnesses believe that these three are separate beings, and Muslim’s believe that Jesus was a prophet, but not the son of god, and that the prophet Mohamed trumps Jesus where the two disagree, because Mohammed came later (and anything Mohamed said later in his life trumps anything Mohammed said earlier in his life if the two disagree). Again, that is my understanding. Now, all 3 religions inherit from Judaism, inheriting the majority of the holy book of Judaism (sometimes a book or two excluded), as well as the tradition. One could look at all 3 religions as being sects of Judaism. Jehovah’s witnesses also inherit from Christianity, as do (according to my understanding) Muslims, but they each have their own prophets, who's works they place above the new testament in terms of importance. Jehovah's witnesses believe that their group's scriptures are another testament of Jesus Christ, where as the Muslims believe that they are following the last true profit. That is, again, my understanding, and I am sorry if I have made a mistake and offended anyone in this. So these 4 religions are very closely tied, to the point where the lines between them can be hard to draw at times. All of them worship what they believe to be the god of Abraham. However what they believe their god to be, and want can be very different within these religions, and even more so between them. However "God" (capital G) is used most commonly to refer to the God of Abraham, the one worshiped by Jews, Christians, Jehovah's witnesses, and Muslims... just not always in the same way. Muslims use 'Allah' to refer to this god, in the same way that Christians use "God" to refer to him, and Jews use "Yahweh", all as place holders for the name of a God who (in the old testament) refused to be named, to show his worshipers that they could not use naming magic to gain any level of control over him, and to show that in some way, he will always be unknowable, again, as I understand it. The Jehovah’s witnesses, however, believe that the name of God IS Jehovah. Again, according to my understanding.
In those days and times, the Bible would not need to be specifically mentioned by name. It goes without saying. As for the same "God," there is certainly argument there to base that foundation. However, I've always disagreed with this. Prior to islam being invented, "allah" was the name of a moon god. I'd like to think that the God of Christianity does not stand for: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1276336&postcount=59 Of course, some atheists, but more importantly, those filled with hatred towards Christians in general will always point out scriptures in the Old Testament, to which I point out this particular post for context. What we don't see though, are these types of people referencing the New Testament. In Christian hymns, it's not unusual for God to be referred to as Yahweh or Jehovah.
When you are putting together a list of people and beings you are thanking, I hardly think that “The Bible†being on the list goes without saying. Also, I did specifically state that, according to my understanding, the 4 different sects I named view their god and what he desires very differently, but all 4 believe him to be the God of Abraham. I am not stating that what Muslims believe God to want is the same as what Christians believe god to want, I am saying that they both believe themselves to be worshiping the God who spoke to Abraham, if they read their holy texts. And saying that “Allah†was used to refer to a moon god, and claiming that means that anyone that uses that word is not referring to the God of Abraham is like saying that simply because “Kami†was used to refer to a wide range of nature spirits in Japanese, that when a Japanese person who is a Roman Catholic uses the word “Kami†to refer to God (as it is a generic name for god, as is “Deity†in English), that they aren’t referring to the god of Abraham, but rather to the Rice God that was the lord of the Kitsune in Japanese mythology… unless that word was a name that belonged to that moon god and that moon god alone.
Most people except for religious fantastics and extremists recognize that Christianity, Judaism and Islam worship the SAME god. Even the Pope recognizes that they all worship the same god. For those who want to talk about the trinity and such go study your history and look at where the various splits in the religions take place. You will see that Christianity and Islam all were born out of Judaism. Nobody but religious wackos are going to care if one takes their oath of office while holding their hand on a Bible, Quran, the U.S. Constitution, etc. Heck even President Kennedy did not swear an oath on the Bible (he affirmed for the afore mentioned reasons). It doesn't matter what one rests their hand on, what matters is what is in their heart when they take an oath. Placing one's hand on a sacred document while taking an oath is simply a matter of cultural tradition with that document becoming a physical reminder of what one swore/affirmed to do and not do. I would hope that each politician placed the document they placed their hand on while taking their oath on display in their office where they will constantly see it as a reminder of the oath they took and obligations they have.
Unfortunately, as I understand it (and this comes from "The West Wing", a TV show, so don't put to much stock in it), the placing of the document in the office is not a tradition for US presidents, as many of them have taken to getting loans of famous bibles (the Kennedy bible, the Benjamin Franklin bible) that have been sworn on before by presidents, and then return the bible to those historical societies afterwards.
Well that would explain why so many politicians forget the responsibility they pledged to uphold when they took their oath. How many Congressmen ended up in prison in the past couple of years for corruption related charges?
Depending on how one looks at it, either far to many (to much corruption), or not nearly enough (more of it needs to be excised).
I lean on the not nearly enough side of your statement. I'm hoping the FBI investigations on Capital Hill clean out more of the corruption and influence peddling (regardless of party).
Agreed. I personally get a headache any time the legislature starts thinking they are above the law, such as being immune to having search warrants executed on their chambers. Erk, I think we derailed this topic so much that we’re not even on Union Pacific property any more.
Bingo! You nailed the nail on the head. At the same time we proved the point as to why it doesn't matter what precious document someone places their right hand on when taking an oath. Personally I want the President to take an oath with his hand on the Constitution and then he should be required to read the Bill of Rights out loud as part of his inaugural address. At least this way we will know our President has at least read what they have taken an oath to protect once in their life.
Actually it matters quite a bit, to some people. Where you set a condition that only a wacko would care, I disagree and say that only the uninformed would not care. I don't want a politician taking an oath of office on a book that calls for the destruction of the people of our country. To suggest one should not be concerned about something like this is very disturbing.
Well that would be helpful. Then again some of them still might think of it as "Just a damned piece of paper!" *SIGH*
Even by the harshest interpretations, I doubt the Quran calls for the destruction of the Muslim population living here.
Your concern about the Quran and Islam has proven over time to be nothing more than bigoted intolerance of others and selective memory about the atrocities commited in the name of Christianity. Might I remind you of the Crusades, or how the U.S. government attempted the exterminate the American Indians and their culture in the name of god and "saving the souls of the savages." It isn't the books that teach violence it is those who selectively grab passages from a book and then twist those passages (as you do with the Quran) to stir up hatred and violence. It is a very big shame that the history of the U.S.'s war on American Indian is not more fully taught in school. If you fully understood what was done to American Indians in the 1800 and early 1900's in the name of Christianity you would be ashamed to call your self a Christian. We could also look at the "missionaries" to Africa, China, Russia and many parts of the developing world through the 1800's, 1900's and even today for countless examples of how horribly we have treated people and their culture in the name of Christianity. The Bible and the Quran are not inherently violent; humans are inherently violent and humans have a very long and bloody history of using God and religion to justify their acts of violence and persecution on others regardless if the perpetrators of the violence were Christan, Muslim, Jewish or worshiped the Greek god Ares.
Incorrect. You simply are uninformed and seek moral equivalence to equalize something that needs no equalization. You may remind me of the Crusades all you want and I invite that discussion. For it was Christians fighting back against muslim oppression that sparked the Crusades. If you need to go back a thousand years for today's lesson in moral equivalence, I invite that drastic time frame. You are welcome to discuss the American Indians, if you desire. I am part Comanche Indian and am proud of that heritage. Just be sure that it is my people that you are truly concerned with, before you attempt to use what happened to them for your own personal benefit in debate. If you are concerned about American Indians, you are welcome to donate money, property, gold, silver, cash or other valuables to me, or any Indian charity to quell your own personal feelings of guilt. I doubt you will. I won't even bother with the rest of your wussification. You are uninformed. I have no tolerance for the intolerant. In other words, I have no tolerance for those whose religious ideology calls for the destruction of my country, my family, myself and my way of life. There's a difference between being bigoted (I doubt you know the meaning of the word, the way you use it) and common sense. Apparently you have not figured it out yet.
I actually took an elective in college that centered around the history and literature of various Native American nations, so I know a bit more about it than some. I am still not ashamed to call myself Christian. I am disappointed in others who have called themselves Christian in the past, and even today however. I do not believe that an individual person is inherently violent. I believe that when a person assigns themselves to a group, and there is a division between their group and another, that group can cause them to ignore their better angels, as the phrase goes. Or to paraphrase K in Men in Black I: “People aren’t smart. A person is smart. People are violent, stupid, and panicky.â€
You have some good points here. For a while as a kid I lived on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. In fact I lived nine miles from Wounded Knee where the Wounded Knee massacre took place. One of the particularly evil thing that took place during the 1800's was that church groups would collect up blankets to send to the Indian reservations but these blankets were most typically from people who had been infected by or died from Small Pox. As a result the blankets were infected and subsequently infected and killed Indians in large numbers. Even as recent as thirty or forty years ago if a white teacher or principle caught an Indian child speaking their native language, they would beat the child even if the child was at home playing in their yard. Another trick that was applied as late as the 1930's and maybe 1940's was forcing the Indian kids to go to private Indian boarding schools off their reservation where their hair was cut and they were forced to adopt White Man ways and religion. There is no question that in the 1860's through at least the 1880's the U.S. committed what we would now call genocide and that many of the backers of these efforts were justifying their actions based on the Bible and preaching to others that they had a Christan obligation to "save" the Indians by either getting them to convert to Christianity or killing those savages who they could not "save". GTech you may want to ignore this part of our history and try to Justify the blood that has been spilled in the name of Christianity, but the fact remains, Christianity has proven throughout the centuries to be as bloody and intolerant of a religion as any other. This doesn't mean all Christians are evil intolerant people bent on killing all no Christians. It just means that some evil people have twisted the minds of the faithful to commit violent acts in the name of Christianity just like we see happen in other religions.
There is no moral equivalence. Let's summarize this: You have no problem with someone affirming an oath on a book that instructs it's followers to kill non-believers? I want to establish the difference between being uninformed and willful ignorance. Further, you call anyone who disagrees with your view (bigotry) a wacko, then proceed to call them a bigot to cover your own bigotry? Then you set off seeking moral equivalence by invoking the Crusades (I welcome that discussion, btw) and Indians (which Indian charity will you be donating too?)? What will you call next, to rationalize that it's ok to take an affirmation on a book that calls for the deaths of others and instructs it's followers not to befriend Christians and Jews? It's ok to recognize things for what they are, sometimes. Not everything needs something to equalize it in an attempt to rationalize it. I guess the only question that remains is, are you being willfully ignorant or are you uninformed? Or maybe you haven't played all your "moral equivalence" cards yet?