Are you talking about a government employee taking personal time during the day to pray? I agree, whole-heartedly.
If you are talking about enshrining specifially religous beliefs and behaviors into official governental action? I strongly disagree.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Outrage Over Christian Prayer at PA State House During Muslim Rep Swear-In
- Thread starter Route 45
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Are you talking about a government employee taking personal time during the day to pray? I agree, whole-heartedly.
If you are talking about enshrining specifially religous beliefs and behaviors into official governental action? I strongly disagree.
I'm with you 100%
Because we can?
This first thing we need to do is recognize that not all ideologies are equal. In fact, they are all quite different. Just because two ideologies are religions doesn't mean that all religions are the same and should be lumped together. That is like saying all systems of government are the same. That is a classic way of deflecting and avoiding the actual topic. No one wants to have educated public discourse, because it's my belief that most people aren't sufficiently educated and are terrified that their ignorance will be put on display. So, they make generalizations and lean on feelings. No one wants to say that there is an objective source of truth or right and wrong anymore either. So, things that would have been considered evil, like honor killings, are just a part of a different culture that we shouldn't judge.
Christianity does not espouse the establishment of a caliphate. You can start there.
Attacking Christianity is nothing new and is not unexpected.
Christianity does not espouse the establishment of a caliphate. You can start there.
Attacking Christianity is nothing new and is not unexpected.
I'm not sure what you mean by "enshrining...into official governmental action". There is a very broad spectrum here, so I want to know where you draw the line.
For me, the line, constitutionally, is congress passing a law establishing a state religion - or congress passing a law that prohibits the free exercise of (all or specific) religions.
My line is way south of actually passing a law establishing a state religion, which will never happen. Showing any preference whatsoever to a particular religion violates the spirit of the prohibition of the establishment of a religion. I'm guessing you are just fine with things like the NFA, since it is not a law banning possession of any firearm, just a tax. Same for ammo taxes...no one is banning any ammo.
I posted the story because it shows outrage towards Christian prayer and applause for a reading from the Quaran. Be careful what you wish for when you insist on the permeation of religion in to every nook and cranny of our government.
Respectfully, Rt45
Ignoring, for the moment, the canard that anyone is 'insist[ing] on the permeation of religion in to every nook and cranny of our government'; do you not think that a wider acceptance for the free discussion and contrasting of religiously based ideas of conduct and behavior at all levels would act to insulate us more from extremism?
Without such contrasting, would we simply have to accept the official positions of Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar as somehow representative of Islam? Has having BehindBlueIs opinion and analysis, or that of foszoe or T.Lex, freely available on INGO added to or stifled debate? Has the atheist position received short shrift or reasoned pushback? Has the situation that develops on campus or within the PC business world taught you nothing about how restrictions on subjects allowable for discussion inevitably turn out? Hint: It isn't the extreme viewpoints that get silenced
Ignoring, for the moment, the canard that anyone is 'insist[ing] on the permeation of religion in to every nook and cranny of our government'; do you not think that a wider acceptance for the free discussion and contrasting of religiously based ideas of conduct and behavior at all levels would act to insulate us more from extremism?
Without such contrasting, would we simply have to accept the official positions of Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar as somehow representative of Islam? Has having BehindBlueIs opinion and analysis, or that of foszoe or T.Lex, freely available on INGO added to or stifled debate? Has the atheist position received short shrift or reasoned pushback? Has the situation that develops on campus or within the PC business world taught you nothing about how restrictions on subjects allowable for discussion inevitably turn out? Hint: It isn't the extreme viewpoints that get silenced
I agree. Referring to someone's religion as "crap" is uncalled for.
indiucky
Grandmaster
I'm not talking about INGO, campus or PC business. I am talking about government, something that affects the lives of each and every American. Spouting "every knee shall bow to Jesus" has no place in an official government function, and neither do readings from the Quaran or any other religious book.
Whether you think that the views of Tlaib and Omar are representative of Islam is for another thread, but if you are paying any attention regarding the actual implementation of Islam in the majority of countries where it is the dominant religion, I think you'll find more than a few coincidences.
As always, I'm SMH at the idea that a bunch of atheists or agnostics got together and designed a constitutional technocracy that has somehow been subverted by religion, rather than that the founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian and designed a constitutional republic with the expectation that it would be carried forward by men of education and morality such as themselves
Even the Greeks had Gods
Even the Greeks had Gods
Apparently not. Or maybe they're just big Bob Dylan fans.
To be fair, stoning was considered okay by Old Testament law in some instances. (Before someone brings that up.) But Christians tend to be more New Testament-oriented when it comes to the law, because well... He wasn't around during Old Testament times.
And some of the founding fathers even had slaves. So much for your Christian morality.
You do your argument no favor by pointing out that the Greeks had gods, either. Obviously, somebody's religion has to be BS. How fortunate that you belong to the "correct" one in this later stage of human history. Very lucky, indeed.
If you've ever studied religions and compared the basic tenets of their beliefs, there is a lot more in common than not IMHO. Even the pantheistic ones usually had a "head god" figure, with some lesser gods and demi-gods. The Native Americans had their Great Spirit. The Muslims have Allah. The Jews have G_d. I don't recall the "head god" of Hinduism. The Buddhists are a little harder to pin down because they kind of believe that "god" is in all of us.
So to my way of thinking, a common belief in something greater than ourselves seems to be the rule, and not the exception.
If some kind of shared experience is so widespread in such geographically diverse places, doesn't that give you pause? A simple yes, no, or maybe is acceptable since I don't want to run this thread into the ditch.
