Yet again, it has no bearing on anything I've presented. I do wish if you were going to participate, you'd stick with what's actually being discussed. I've never said it is, nor should be, illegal to stop. I simply take issue with someone using a book to affirm their oath to protect and serve people in which the very book being affirmed on, calls for their death. It's really such a simple concept.
If you AT ALL CARE ABOUT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION you shouldn't even take issue if he took an oath of office with his hand on a satanic Bible. You may decide to try and vote who did this out of office at the next election (which I could understand) but that is a totally different matter. If you truly care about our Constitution and from what I gather you are or were in the military and thus have taken an oath to defend the Constitution you must defend this Congressman's Constitutional right to use a Koran no matter how much you dislike the Koran. To make an issue of this or to use public forums as a means to try and coheres someone to forgo their Constitutional right to freedom of religion is unconscionable. If you do not defend his Constitutional rights, how can you expect others to defend your Constitutional rights? We can not be selective in how we uphold or defend the Constitution even if it is inconvenient or allows someone to do something that offends our senses.
And later in the message you quote, I did state that I supported your right to take issue with him using said book, so long as you don't advocate depriving him of his right to do so. And just because I expand slightly on what you define to be the topic YOU wish to discuss, does not mean that I am off topic. And back handed insults implying that I cannot understand a simple concept are neither welcome, nor necessary. I came back into this topic, contrary to the fact that I did not intend to, and posted that intent, because I hoped that we could have a civil discussion about this topic, as things had cooled down.
Got it. So if I do not tolerate someone else's religious right to kill me and or others then I don't support the Constitution and I'm intolerant? What Constitutional Right gives him the right to swear an oath of affimation on a book that calls for the deaths of the people he is affirming to protect?
You're using a victim card here when one isn't warranted. Save them, for appropriate times and use them affectively. I've noted several times now, that in the context you've brought things up, I've said nothing regarding them. I do not believe I'm out of line in asking you to stay focused.
Asking me to discuss a specific part of a broader topic is not out of line, no. Using a back handed insult to imply that I can't understand the request when I do not comply, however, is.
If I want to insult you, I will. Make no mistake about it. It is a simple concept to understand. Use your victim cards sparingly. They only go so far.
And there you go again. GTech, I DO know that, whether you intended to be insulting or abusive or not, your post used condescending and insulting phrases. I've gotten enough of this subtle emotional abuse from my father growing up that it is VERY easy to recognize for me. I am not playing any kind of "victim card" here, I am simply letting you know that I generally know when I've been insulted, and that I don't intend to put up with it and LET myself be a victim, there is a large difference.
This is the way you interpret the Koran, it is not the way MOST people interpret the Koran. If Islamic scholars and Islamic religious leaders have never come to an agreement on the interpretation of the Koran, there is no way you can claim your interpretation or understanding of the Koran is the one correct interpretation. Especially since you are selectively quoting an English version of the Koran and the prophet Mohammad lived and shared his teachings that became the Koran almost 1,000 years before the English language came into being. The understanding and interpretation of ANY religious book is a deeply personal thing and no two people will every fully agree upon what one book says or means. By trying shove a few select translated passages at us, you are taking those writings out of the context of the larger writings that surround them and out of the context of the time and place they were written. This is the surest way to misrepresent the greater meaning of any religious scripture or the modern status of where a religion has evolved to. The problem in this case is that you and Bin Laden may be trying to interpret the Koran in a similar manner, but the vast majority of good Muslims do not share your interpretation and most will argue that both of your interpretations are seriously flawed. Who are you, a Christian, to argue with what Islam or the Koran mean to a Muslim Congressman? You would not want a Muslim pulling select passages out of the Bible translating into their own language and the saying those select passages, that were taken out of context show Christianity in the worst light, who how evil Christianity is and use those passages to try and prove that Christianity believes that we should kill all non-believers (I'm very certain that the correct passages could be pulled together from the Bible to say this very thing). The passage in the Constitution I quoted earlier and the Constitutional rights to freedom of religion. If one Congressman is allowed to hold the Bible while taking their oath then this Congressman is allowed to hold the Koran. For it to be otherwise would violate two or three different sections of the Constitution.
There I go again, what? It is a simple concept to understand. There's nothing insulting in that. It's a fact, it's simple to understand. Like I'm supposed to know you were abused as a kid and are over-sthensitive to everything? If you want me to insult you, I will. Otherwise, get on with the discussion and stop pretending to be a victim to solicit support. That's not a strategy that works well down here.
This is a phrase used to invalidate another's feelings and emotional responses. My emotions, and my experiences are valid. Even if you are not aware of the harm some phrases you are accustomed to using can do, they can still be harmful. I do not want to be insulted, but even if you do not realize it you have been insulting me. I will continue the previous subject of discussion we were having when I feel comfortable that you will stop insulting me when you dislike the tact I am taking in the conversation. Also, the exact topic of a discussion can, and often does roam somewhat, if you feel it has become off topic enough for a general forum topic that this should be continued in PM, I am willing to continue it there. If you don't we can continue here.
Religion is never a simple fact to understand and neither is what is written in religious scriptures if it were we wouldn't have like a hundred different Christan religions. Who's right, who's wrong? The Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists, Episcopalians, Catholics, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, who? Islam isn't any better. From my understanding there are at least three major divisions of Islam and within these major divisions every religious leader can put their own spin on things. This is the thing with religion, there is no one truth for any religion and this is why your trying to claims about Islam are so flawed. This is uncalled for and is another example of you making personal attacks against individuals who disagree with you.
I hope you are not deliberately trying to lie here. My source was the University of Southern California, whose translations include three different translations for each verse. Am I to conclude that you are so willing to advance the cause of political correctness, that you didn't even take the time to read them? You would make such a fuss, without having validated them? They are not my translations. Any reasonable person with an ounce of intelligence could (if they actually chose to) read them and come to the same conclusion. The translations were made by islamic scholars. For each verse there are three popular versions translated by islamic scholars. Had you actually taken the time to read such, you would know this. It sounds as if you are saying you are above not only USC, who has simply provided the translations of the islamic scholars, but also above the islamic scholars themselves. There is no misrepresentation. The translations/interpretations are neither by myself or bin laden. I'm just blown away that you are in such denial that you've resorted to making things up off the top of your head. Again, I have not translated anything. islamic scholars have. Is this an intentional lack of integrity on your part, or are you really that uninformed? Now we're back to moral equivalence. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1276336&postcount=59 I believe my mistake has been, to believe you would actually read these verses and do a little research on them. Apparently you haven't done so and even further, you don't really care. So you have no specific mention in the Constitution that says a person can affirm an oath to office to protect and serve people the book he holds calls for their deaths? So if I do not tolerate someone else's religious right to kill me and or others then I don't support the Constitution and I'm intolerant?
Right on cue, that solicited support couldn't have been timed more perfectly! I also read palms too. $25 per hand. When you can't debate, pretend to be a victim. How often I see it fail
There is a difference between the translation of individual words and phrases, and attempting to interpret what an entire book full of those words and phrases means as a collected work. In your last post, you were talking about translations of the phrases you quoted. KLB was talking about the interpretation of an entire book as a whole. If one quotes one or two lines from an English translation of a German book that is a satirical novel where the main character praises communism, that might lead those listening to the quotes to believe that the book praises communism, despite the fact that the book is actually criticizing Communism. At a brief glance through of the Gilbert and Sullivan play “Mikado†it appears to be a commentary on Japanese culture, but when one does a full analysis of it, it is apparent that the play actually holds a second layer of meaning, which is a send up of British culture.
No one is translating individual words. I've not mentioned the quran as a whole. These are scriptures. If you believe they are not true, then expand on why you think they are translated by three different islamic scholars, but still cannot see what they say. The whole of any book is made up of it's parts. There is no misrepresenting these parts. You've already admitted you know nothing about it, but are willing to defend it for KLB's sake. I hope he appreciates your loyalty to a failed debate.
See above about the Mikado, and quoting from a Satirical work. The whole of a literary work is often quite more than the sum of it’s parts. How much more true could this be of religious scriptures. And at no point have I said that I hold any opinion about what the Quran is, but unless you are a scholar who has read the entire book, and discussed the book with other scholars, I will trust the word of Islamic religious leaders and scholars over what the book is about over your word. I’m sorry that I didn’t state it more clearly earlier. I do not yet view you as an Authoritative source on the Quran. I have been working under the impression that you are NOT a scholar of Islamic text and philosophy, and attempting to explain that if you are basing your understanding of the Quran off of a select few quotes, your understanding of the Quran as a whole may well be fundamentally flawed. That is the general thrust of my position/argument. My position is not that you are deceiving us, or miss-quoting, but that quotes do not an understanding make.
Religious interpretation of what a scripture means IS NOT the same as a language interpretation and if you understood religion at all you would know this. Again you are pulling select passages out of context of the writings around them and out of context of the time and place they were originally spoken. Both of these factors are critical as to trying to understand (e.g. interpret) what the passages were trying to say at the time and what they should say to us today in a different time and place. Another example of baseless personal attack. Just try to throw labels on people to discredit them. Sorry but most people are smart enough to see through this even if it is the Republican Party's favorite campaign tactic. Again language interpretation IS NOT THE SAME AS religious interpretation which requires looking at a text as a whole and with an understanding of the time and place. Like I said earlier we do not want Christianity to be represented or judged based on a literal language interpretation of some passages in the Bible that are taken out of the context of the passages around them and the time and place they were written. 1,500 - 2,000 years ago was a very violent time in history. They are STILL LANGUAGE INTERPRETATIONS by individuals and the passages are still taken out of context of time, space, and relation to other text. 1,500 years after Mohammad spoke his words (which were written down by others) Islamic scholars are still debating what he meant. As I heard someone say about religious scriptures, the words are God the writings and interpretation are man's. I'm sick of doing your constitutional dirty work. Go prove to use that he does not have a Constitutional right to hold the Koran during his swearing in. I might advise you to start with Article VI and then go to the 1st Amendment. After that find where the Constitution states that the oath of office must be taken on the Bible or where the Constitution mentions the Bible. Being as Article VI and the 1st Amendment both explicitly prohibit religious tests and State sponsored religion and that tradition allows for the use of religious scriptures at swearing ins (the Bible and the Book of Mormon have been used as previously documented). the Koran CAN NOT be forbidden. To ban the Koran would violate Article VI and the 1st Amendment because the use of the Bible and Book of Mormon have set precedent and banning the Koran would set a religious test and would be implicitly a State sponsorship of religion by excluding a religion, which is a obvious violation of the Constitution. To try to find any Constitutional argument that prohibits the Koran for the taking of Oaths while allowing the Bible is laughable at best. So if I do not tolerate someone else's religious right to kill me and or others then I don't support the Constitution and I'm intolerant?[/QUOTE]