Muslim congressman and The Bible

I complete agree with this statement and it is the opinion that I hold.

 

Okay, KBL, I'm sorry, but I don't really think that drawing the republican party into a debate with GTech is really that Kosher. If you want GTech to be tolerant of Muslims, I suggest you set an example by being Tolerant of individual republicans, rather than attacking the political party as a group.

I thank you for your support of my last post, though.

 

That is exactly why I chose to quote that source, because it has translations from three different scholars. There is no way a person could misinterpret them, unless chosing to do so wilfully. Nor have I said you hold any opinion. As well, I have not said that there are only six dwarves in Snow White, instead of seven.

I have never claimed to be a scholar. You have quite the history of doing this. Here, let me try it...I do not view you as an expert on Taco Bell seasonings. But GTech, I never said I was??? See how it works?

In fact, I chose the translations of three different scholars to make my point, which you've both somewhat agreed you desire. After pointing this out, denial still seems to be the preferred path.

 

You continue to use this as your shield of denial. Put them in context. You claim they are taken out of context. What context should they be in? You should know, correct?

Incorrect, an observation and an astute observation at that. You call for an islamic scholar translation, and when I note they are, it's clear you did not read them. That's not a personal attack. My the victim card is running low today.

Put them in context. To even attempt to do so, invalidates your previous claim of denying them in the first place. You continue to dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole. At first you lie and say they are not true, then resort to denial. Now you are saying they are true, but taken out of context. How many more positions can you have? Put them in context. You are so sure now, that they are out of context, put them in the context you believe they should be in.

You've done little, if any work. From what I'm able to gather by your own willingness to share, you never even read the verses in the first place. Never even took the time. I don't need to prove it's not a Constitutional Right. I've never claimed it wasn't. I simply asked you to prove otherwise. You are incapable of doing so, which is exactly what I expected.

I agree. Only because you twisted what I asked for. Basically doing the same thing you pretend to be a victim of every other post.

Still no answer?

 

GTech, when I say “Interpretation of the Quran as a whole” I do not, in any way, by any means, mean “The specific translations of the verses you quoted.”

And no, you have not said that you are an expert on the Quran, merely that you know what the religion that is based on it advocates. I pointed out that, while I did not KNOW if you were an expert, I did not view you as one, and so would trust those who are Islamic scholars on what the Quran as a whole advocates unless you presented me with credentials stating that you WERE. It was not a claim that you HAD stated yourself to be an expert, but an invitation to make that statement if you were. Again, not what the specific passages you quoted advocate, but what the whole book, in context, advocates.

Now, if I said that I authoritatively knew what the best item on the Taco bell menu was based on flavor and seasoning, and gave evidence based on 2 or 3 dishes that I had tried, and you stated that you didn’t view me as an authority on taco bell seasonings that would be entirely on topic, and a fair statement to make.

 

Maybe I should have used FOX News instead.

Don't look at it as a political party jab because I do not vote party lines and am very pragmatic about the way I vote. For instance I happen to really like the Republican Senators from my state and voted for the the one who was just up for reelection (Olympia Snowe) in spite of my feelings about Bush. The Republican Party was just a good example of a group that we can relate to that pins labels on others as a matter of course (the Democrats just suck at this even though they try).

 

The church and state is supposed to be seperate ...

Big Business and State are joined.

 

Right, I'm well aware that denial and wilfully ignoring them is the basis of yours and KLBs arguments.

I believe it all boils down to the most complicated, yet unanswered question:

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?

 

*snicker* Okay, yeah, Fox I would have accepted the Diss on, especially with O'Riely. Or as my mother sarcastically calls him "O'Smiley O'Riely."

 

There is a difference between willfully ignoring something, and saying that it may not paint the whole picture. I have been doing the second, not the first.

I don’t believe this to be the core of the issue here, but since you do, and have been accusing KLB of evasion for not answering it, I’ll give my opinion on it.

No one has a religious right to kill you. However, a Muslim does have a religious right to place their hand on the Quran when being sworn in if a Christian is allowed to place their hand on a bible while being sworn in.

 

From what I remember Snowe is liberal in somethings, isn't she? Something about your region of the world. More independent minds around Maine and New Hampshire. I say that because I tend to see less partisanship from the politicians around there. *shrug*

 

I honestly haven't seen any difference between them, between you two. "The whole" only came into play in the last 5-7 posts. I figured it was a strategy, since it was clear that wilfully ignoring was not working for you two.

I can't dispute that. But I've never argued it wasn't legal. What I have argued is, that there is reason for concern (and I take exception with) someone affirming an oath of service to a group of people whose book that affirmation is being sworn on calls for their deaths.

And because I've taken exception with that and because I did not subscribe to KLB's bigotry when he, in words to the affect, noted that if you have any problem with it, you are a religious wacko. In other words, you are a wacko if you don't agree with me. In other words, there is no room for disagreement, lest ye be a wacko.

I must say, I've enjoyed the double standards, the outright denial and projectionism. It's made for a fun debate. Work on the victim cards though. You have to be careful with the victim strategy. If you come out swinging with it too fast, it will be apparent to everyone. Use them sparingly.

 

Rick,
Say, a while back I heard of a group who wanted to band together and move to one state, and there make a stand for less government intervention, and more personal responsibilities (no helmet or seat belt laws, or abortion laws, or what have you, lower taxes, lower welfare). I thought it might have been New Hampshire that they picked, due to it being the one closest to their goals. Would you happen to know anything about that?

 

GTech, I now recognize for a second time that you did not advocate preventing him from taking his oath on the Quran, and were merely expressing concern and taking exception over him doing so. I support, for a second time, your right to take exception to it.

In my previous post I was merely reiterating my own opinion on this issue, not attacking the fact that you take exception to it, nor claiming that you advocated abrogating the rights of the congressman. I apologize if my meaning and intent were not clear enough for you to be able to understand them.

However, for the majority of this discussion, I have been confining my posts to you primarily to try to clear up things that KLB said to you, that you did not seem to understand, such as the meaning and definition of a Strawman debate fallacy, the difference between translation and interpretation, and attempting to point out that broadening or narrowing the topic in one’s response to another’s post does not constitute evading the issue, or eluding it. I only attempted to bring up “the whole” when the difference between the interpretation of the Quran, and the translation of the Quran was brought into question. Yes, that was rather recent, but that was the first time it came up. Those verses you quoted have been in the topic for a while now. I still decline to discuss them.

 

Yes, I was involved in it.

Freestateproject.org

They're having problems gathering the numbers necessary, and they're marketing it wrong, imo. If they truely want to do such, they're going to have to target as many secular conservatives as they do libertarians. They'll have to make comprimises (in other words).

Way I see it, is the secular conservatives and libertarians are probably the closest to my ideals. I really wish the nation was in between those two, but the luck-of-the-dice isn't rolling that way. Sincerly I respect them more than any other organization out there, and I think they're probably some of the best people I know.

Although when it comes down to it, my life will not be around snowy areas or causes that need to be specifically worked-on; but eventually ideas like that will change our future for the better, imo.

 

The context of the whole scriptures and the time and place at which Mohammad spoke those passages and why he spoke them. Neither of us know these things with the intimate knowledge necessary to understand them, so by trying to quote these short passages without an understanding of the rest you are taking it out of context.

I don't need to prove my knowledge of a scripture to know when it is being taken out of context. Like Josh Inno stated you are not an Islamic scholar and thus have basis to prove what Islam is or is not. You have simply latched on to a few passages that you think proves your point without taking the time to understand the whole.

I do not have the time or inclination to become a great scholar of Islam, but I do know that the Islam and Koran you are trying to represent to me is not the Islam and Koran that has been represented to me by true Islamic scholars from both the Christian and Islamic faiths throughout my life. In fact what you try to claim flies in the face of everything I have ever been taught about Islam in School (I went to private schools where such things could be discussed), church (Christian) and through educational programing on TV networks like PBS and the History Channel.

I have no need to put them in context to show that you have taken them out of context and colored your beliefs about Islam with preconceived notions that are in all likelihood incorrect. To put those highly selective phrases into context would require years of serious religious studies just like one can not quote a passage of the Bible and understand its fully meaning and context without fully studying the rest of the Bible (how many times does the Bible contradict itself).

My point has been that you have taken key passages of the Koran out of context and then claim that they represent to Koran as a whole. This is not a fair representation of the Koran or Islam.

Throughout my life I have known and even lived with many Muslims (Iranian students lived with my family while going to college in America, when I was in boarding school, college dorms, etc.). They came from many different backgrounds (Lebanese, Iranian, Palestinian, Kenyan, former Soviet Republics, South Asia, etc.) Even Portland Maine where I now live has a very large Somali population. The Islam you represent is not the Islam these people understood, knew or shared when asked. Many fled to America to escape the war and violence of the Middle East (e.g. the Iranian students fleeing the Islamic Revolution of 1979).

What these people knew, practiced and shared was a peaceful religion that had great tolerance for others and a requirement for learning. The radicalization of Islam that you are trying to represent and we see from people like the Tellaban and Al Quada is not the Islam we see practiced throughout most of the Muslim world.

What we have seen portrayed on TV since 9/11 is skewed and twisted by fear and sensationalism and egged on by Christian fundamentalists who see this as an opportunity to spread their distorted view of one of the world's great religions. People are mistaking the actions of terrorists and extremists bent on controlling the world and reverting the Middle East to the dark ages with the true nature of Islam. These extremists are twisting Islam and misrepresenting it to justify their actions much like various religions have been twisted to justify violence for thousands of years.

The view of Islam spread by the likes of Bin Laden has never existed. It was because of Islam that much of the knowledge that would have been during the Dark Ages, when a repressive Catholic Church basically ruled Europe, lost was protected nurtured such that we can still benefit from it today.

So do I have a problem with a Muslim Congressman holding a Koran at his swearing in, no I do not nor do I share your distorted view of Islam because I have had so many opportunities to know people of the Islamic faith.

I don't care about a politician's religion, what I care about is what is in their heart and whether they can separate and balance their spiritual beliefs with the obligations as a public servant.

 

Boy did our founding fathers screw up when they didn't also call for the separation of business and state.

 

Rick, Ah! Good to know my mind isn’t going quite yet at the ripe old age of 25.

You said that you were involved in it. Are you still among their number, or not?

In either way, while I am not ready to pack up and move for a political cause, that page did give me cause to think about small government vrs large government, and sparked a few thought provoking debates between myself and my friend. I wish them (you?) luck in getting the people they (you?) need.

 

Jefferson was highly concerned with that. The man predicted the civil war, and eventually predicted that industrialism would lead to excessive government. But you can't practically separate business from state, fully. Business has to have some influence on the state or I geniunely think the people's interest(s) would conflict with businesses/economic flourishment.

There has to be some sort of reasonable business consesus on government relations--vs a bias business influence.

 

Not liberal so much as independently minded as is the tradition with Maine politicians. When you look at many of the great Senators a disproportional share come from Maine because of their being independently minded and taking issues very seriously. There is a tradition here of not allowing partisan loyalties to get in the way of what is the greater good. It is all part of the very pragmatic mentality I have learned multi-generational Mainers have (I'm new to Maine).