The people have spoken...

[Cali Knight]

timurlenk

You were right. Iam very sorry for the misinformation I gave here is a link I should have found before I posted that lie.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_quran_911.htm

[Sir Turylon]

good greif Lurker...
Fortunately, we have a democracy in place to guarantee that majority rules and that such decisions stand. A decision from the heart of our political system that I am sure we will both abide by and respect.

yes... a democracy that helps protect the minority from the majority rule.

You must not know a single thing about how the American government is setup if you believe that a court ruling on a lawsuit can legislate laws. Wake up and go read the articles again. Show me where the courts, even the supreme court, can legislate law! take your time... I do not expect to hear an answer from you on this because there is none. Abortion was never made legal! NEVER! The supreme court only ruled that the woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. Here is how we make laws in this country. A bill is introduced in the House, it goes to commitee, it is voted on. If it passes it goes to Senate, repeat the process. If it is passed, the President then can sign it into LAW. THEN, and only then can the judiciary rule wether or not the law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court never consulted if there was a law or not. The entire case was based on the right to privacy... Nothing to do with abortion at all, in fact. The US constitution never states, "a woman has the right to murder her unborn child." If it did, the Supreme Court could STILL not rule against it. The Judiciary has NO POWER over the constitution... none... zilch... If it tries to create a law, it is what we call judicial tyranny. If someone introduces an amendment bill into the house saying abortion is murder and is illegal on the US constitution... The court can not touch it.

Now... why is the Federal court system interfering with state rights? Since Therefore it is a matter of state determination. Not federal. The matter should not have even gone to the Supreme Court. Why did it? The feminist movement forced it through litigation until the Federal courts stepped in. This is a standard tactic of liberals and other left-wing movements. They know they cannot win or force their own agendas through the senate, so they turn to the liberal court system. They fish for a judge till they find one sympathetic to their cause.

What does this mean? Simply this. If the liberal/non-conservative population is forced to fish for a judge in order for there agenda to be forwarded, the majority must be conservative! Since majority rules in this democracy through the Legistative and Executive branchs... the Liberals are relegated to the one branch that CANNOT, under the constitution, create a law. Remember, roe v wade was not about abortion... it was about choice and the "right to privacy." A simple Executive order or Legislative bill can defeat this court ruling.

Look at what happened in Mass. The court could not rule gays had the right to get married. It could only force the legislature to pass a bill saying the state could not prohibit them! This is, again, judicial tyranny.

@William
THIS WAR WAS NEVER APPROVED BY UN.
Be sure to say that next time Germany tries to take over Europe. Better yet, say that when Russia threatens the entire continent. Or, perhaps you would like to say that when some terrorist decides to blow up a nuclear device next to your house because you refused to go after them without UN approval.

[quote]Which is the only legitamate structure which represent the opinion of other countries./quote[
I geuss you never heard about how Chirac and other European leaders were making money off of Saddam. Yeah... the UN is so... legitimate. How come the UN never stopped the atrocites in Bosnia, Sudan, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and several other nations? The UN has outlived its usefulness. It failed to prevent escalations in the cold war. It failed to stop tyrants from taking over and brutalizing their populations. It failed at keeping peace in several hotspots around the globe. Get rid of it. you guys got the EU... "the best place to live in the world." :rolleyes:
We'll let the EU decide wether or not to defend your countries... America will decide our defense, not some corrupted world body. :go:



@Knightly Sword.
/sarcasm yes, and theology classes really help you understand things... /end sarcasm
Sorry, but learning about religions from a classroom is like learning history from the movies.

[Sir Turylon]

Well, that's what I call humour. May God save America, as they say... ;(

not meant to offend. :) It was funny because the article writer was going on about how Europeans think all Americans are beer guzzling, gun crazy, nascar watching, cousin marrying, culturally defunct, neo-facist conservative, war mongering, morons. He was quoting from some news journal that's international. Is it true France only has ~60 million people?

Would you Euros kill us Yanks if we came over there now? :rofl:

[Finellach]

I can't believe they elected this moron again. :rofl:
I mean the man is so stupid it can't be expressed with words....he almost choked with chips for Gods sake. :lol:

Well americans elected him and they shall have him. :p

Edit: btw. there is increase in Canadian immigration center....it seems intrest in america for immigrating to Canada is increasing....and who can blame them, I would run away too. :rofl:

[Stefan]

ehh lol? everyone knows that judasim ,christanity and islam
relates to each other. its just some people getting the wrong fact or deniaing it just because they think it its violent or terrorism kinda religion . man thats so stupid :cool:

I didnt mention anything about violence seperating them. The Christian GOd is not the muslim god Allah because Allah judges based on works whereas our God judges based on faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is a pretty big difference if you ask me.

There is also a verse in the Koran that says something like "allah never begot a son" which is another direct contradiction with the Christian God

Theres the quote sura 23:91
23.91] Never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any (other) god-- in that case would each god have certainly taken away what he created, and some of them would certainly have overpowered others; glory be to Allah above what they describe!

[Hector]

I didnt mention anything about violence seperating them. The Christian GOd is not the muslim god Allah because Allah judges based on works whereas our God judges based on faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is a pretty big difference if you ask me.

There is also a verse in the Koran that says something like "allah never begot a son" which is another direct contradiction with the Christian God

Theres the quote sura 23:91
23.91] Never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any (other) god-- in that case would each god have certainly taken away what he created, and some of them would certainly have overpowered others; glory be to Allah above what they describe!


yes the jews dont believe in jezus either etc etc.

the thing all three religions has profits which are accepted among the three religions

jews dont believe in Isa ( Jezus ) christians and muslims do muslims believes in Mohammed christians dont

[Cro_Knight]

I can't believe they elected this moron again. :rofl:
I mean the man is so stupid it can't be expressed with words....he almost choked with chips for Gods sake. :lol:

Well americans elected him and they shall have him. :p

Edit: btw. there is increase in Canadian immigration center....it seems intrest in america for immigrating to Canada is increasing....and who can blame them, I would run away too. :rofl:
he choked on a pretzel sorry for bein i pickey reader but it sounds more funny like this

[Hector]

bush chocked 3 times and fell 2 times lol

[Abeth]

First off, hello everyone. First post on the board! :cool:

Now, I'd like to address certain issues regarding religion and its place in American politics. I hear alot about the United States being on a popular mission to retain its identity as a nation "under God". But what I don't get is, since when have we been a nation "under God"? That question has an answer - the Cold War.

That particular phrase was introduced in to the pledge of allegiance as a way of striking back and separating us from the evils of Godless communism. Up until that point the pledge had always been spoken without "under God", as far as I understand it. The founding fathers were very much against any religious influence on the state; indeed, they believed that faith was a personal matter - surprisingly the same belief held by the Democratic Party.

What does this mean? It means that overt religious references should not be present in the state, or anything funded by the state. The image of Moses holding the ten commandments present in the Supreme Court is not necessarily an overt religious symbol - after all, it represents the first codification of what can be considered a very early precursor to the basis for western law. That sham of a monument dragged in to a courthouse in Alabama was a very overt message to non-Christians: this courthouse belongs to almighty God, not the state, not the government, and most certainly not you. It doesn't take a whole lot of thought to understand why this is wrong.

Besides, half of the ten commandments aren't against the law in secular, western societies anyways. Is it illegal to commit adultery? No. What about to honor your father and mother? I see teenagers say things about their parents, to their parents' faces, that make my blood curdle. But does that make it illegal? After all, speech is protected. No kid is going to be hauled off to jail because he disrespected his parents. Is it illegal to lie? No. The list goes on. Therefore, can it be considered partial to espouse those things in a court of law, when the law does not support them?

This is not a crusade against religion in America, despite what the religious right believes. There was a time when this country was what the religious right would deem a liberal paradise; that is, religion was not present in the state and the state did not have its hands in religion. I think they would find themselves horrified to see what a Jeffersonian period courthouse looked like. No ten commandments?! By God, these are heathens!

If anything, it's a challenge to a religious right which is dragging the country, kicking and screaming, towards a gloomy future of laws based in religious morality and intolerance. The United States did not begin as a nation under God, and it shall not end as one. We flourished because we separated ourselves from the same dogmatic chaos that dominated European politics, but when we as a people lose our freedom of religion it is only a matter of time before other freedoms begin to fall with it. After all, if it's perfectly ok for the state to espouse one religion, why then is it not ok for the state to promote that religion? Favor that religion over others when it comes to government contracts, government jobs, education positions? And why stop there, why not start forbidding non-Christians from running for elected positions? After all, we're not infringing on their right to choose one religion from another, we're simply controlling the moral fabric of our government... etc. etc.

I say the United States is great because it is free. Without the latter, we will cease to be the former. The Republican party is, by and large, moving the country to a position where its freedoms are threatened in the name of security and morality. These two things should never infringe on a person's rights.

It has been said by one famous historical figure or another that whenever a society gives up freedom for security, it deserves neither. This can be no truer than in our own society. The President has said that terrorists threaten us because they hate our freedom, yet when we sign things in to law like the Patriot Act are we not giving in to their espoused hatred of such freedoms? And every time the President has said we should go on with life as usual, and not let such fears bother us, are we not also reminded that morning by the government that our lives are in peril and we should put trust in an all-knowing Homeland Security Department? We are influential in the world because of our egalitarian traditions, not because of our military strength. The world follows us because they respect us. We are fast squandering that respect by not only abusing the freedoms of other countries, but by abusing our own.

If a man and another man wish to be married there should be no barring them from doing so since, from a legal standpoint, it is simply a contract whereby two parties decide to share property. It isn't as if the government is forcing churches to sanction this kind of marriage - in fact, those likely to partake of gay marriage would be the kind to avoid churches for reasons of intolerance. Civil ceremonies are just as legally binding as religious ones, after all. And what purpose does the government have in deciding how two humans can and cannot interact? There is no reason to write discrimination in to a Constitution meant only to provide freedom.

This Presidential election has done more to damage America's influence abroad than can be spoken by myself. However, even more threatening to the world is the damage it will do to American society. Our freedoms are being encroached on by a moralistic, jingoistic religious right more interested in assigning laws based on religious principle than the western tradition of secular, "liberal" thought. That same faction is interested in destroying the international fabric that has held the world at peace since the second world war.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be a place where freedom is upheld, not discrimination, yet the President would put justices in power that would support the discrimination of an entire section of society. Nation-states are supposed to act with restraint and reguard for their fellow nation-states, yet this President would have this nation-state rule over them all with overbearing force. It should be noted that every single nation-state that has attempted to do so can be found only in one place, the ever-expanding graveyard of empires.

The United States can only hope to lead the world in to the future if it continues to support freedom of thought and choice both abroad and at home. That means the state should not be influencing thought, since that removes our freedom to act. This President is trampling on everything that has made us great, and says it is only making us greater. I only have to look at our respect abroad to see where this is not the case.

It isn't about how stupid George W. Bush is, since it is obvious he is not. It isn't about how fascist George W. Bush is, since it is obvious he is not. It's about his willingness to trample on our freedom, the freedom of the world, and to force his own version of morality on an unwilling society that worries me. And it is those same tendencies that will ruin America and her influence abroad in the next four years unless something can be done to stop it.

[the knightly sword]

I didnt mention anything about violence seperating them. The Christian GOd is not the muslim god Allah because Allah judges based on works whereas our God judges based on faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is a pretty big difference if you ask me.

There is also a verse in the Koran that says something like "allah never begot a son" which is another direct contradiction with the Christian God

Theres the quote sura 23:91
23.91] Never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any (other) god-- in that case would each god have certainly taken away what he created, and some of them would certainly have overpowered others; glory be to Allah above what they describe!


in quran it does stand that jesus christ and moses are prophets . well what do you say about that ? they do approve and state that jesus christ is a prophet but they do not belive that he is son of god.

[timurlenk]

Now... why is the Federal court system interfering with state rights? Since The matter should not have even gone to the Supreme Court. Why did it? The feminist movement forced it through litigation until the Federal courts stepped in. This is a standard tactic of liberals and other left-wing movements. They know they cannot win or force their own agendas through the senate, so they turn to the liberal court system. They fish for a judge till they find one sympathetic to their cause.

What does this mean? Simply this. If the liberal/non-conservative population is forced to fish for a judge in order for there agenda to be forwarded, the majority must be conservative! Since majority rules in this democracy through the Legistative and Executive branchs... the Liberals are relegated to the one branch that CANNOT, under the constitution, create a law. Remember, roe v wade was not about abortion... it was about choice and the "right to privacy." A simple Executive order or Legislative bill can defeat this court ruling.

Look at what happened in Mass. The court could not rule gays had the right to get married. It could only force the legislature to pass a bill saying the state could not prohibit them! This is, again, judicial tyranny.

yes, its called separation of powers. typical for democray. :)
legislative, executive, judicial power.

if supreme court figures out, that the interdiction of abortion or homosexual marriage does not fit to us laws or the constitution its the duty of the court to forbid such interdictions / laws.
so the problem has turned: the supreme court prevents legislative tyranny. 8)



abortion always happend, happens, will happen. it does not matter if its forbidden or not.
no law will ever stop it.
just dont do it yourself.

also noone will ever force you to marry your boyfriend :dwink:



you guys got the EU... "the best place to live in the world." :rolleyes:
indeed. :hello:

We'll let the EU decide wether or not to defend your countries... America will decide our defense, not some corrupted world body. :go:
absolutely. but dont expect the world to accept america's decision about their offensives.




EDIT
@ Abeth
dont worry to much about your respect abroad. world can differentiate between american people and american government. at least almost half of america does not go with bush's idea of ruling... :)

[lurking horror]

yes... a democracy that helps protect the minority from the majority rule.

An interesting point to make when you consider that you have clearly taken the stance that "the vast majority of Americans seem to be conservative in their values". I guess we liberals are lucky that our beliefs and practices are safe from the clear majority, you the conservatives.

You must not know a single thing about how the American government is setup if you believe that a court ruling on a lawsuit can legislate laws. Wake up and go read the articles again.

You wake up and pay attention. I'm getting frustrated with your continually demonstrated inability to assume my argument.

I am not arguing what has gone before. I'm arguing about abortion in regards to the personal beliefs and theoretical actions of the two recent presidential candidates. The argument is made that John Kerry "believed in abortion". Thus implying that he would support current abortion laws. In the context of the discussion, it is assumed that Bush does not support abortion and is therefore a better choice for president.

Therefore, the majority have voted in the leader they expect to represent their beliefs and causes. In this case, stamping out abortion. Get it yet?

I am reffereing to our countries FUTURE. Either Bush, the conservative leader, will represent the will of his people or he will not. I suspect we will both respect and obey that decision and action regardless of our political and ideological association. Correct?

Show me where the courts, even the supreme court, can legislate law! take your time... I do not expect to hear an answer from you on this because there is none.

You can "not" expect an answer from me because it's wholly and completely irrelevant to our line of discussion. I don't care about your beliefs and interpretations of the current legal status of abortion. I offered up a means to to meet halfway in this argument and you are simply to blind with your rhetoric to see it. The means to a decision is out of both are hands and the currently elected officials will work their will now as they choose. Either to honor actual and implied campaign promises, or to ignore and break said promises. Either way, the officials have been chosen by us, the people. The conclusion and actions they may take have been determined by the majority.

Abortion was never made legal! NEVER!

It's been legal in practice. This is not debatable. Regardless of the laws or your interpretation of the laws, the government has been permitting this.

The supreme court only ruled that the woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. Here is how we make laws in this country. A bill is introduced in the House, it goes to commitee, it is voted on. If it passes it goes to Senate, repeat the process. If it is passed, the President then can sign it into LAW. THEN, and only then can the judiciary rule wether or not the law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court never consulted if there was a law or not. The entire case was based on the right to privacy... Nothing to do with abortion at all, in fact.

So?

The US constitution never states, "a woman has the right to murder her unborn child." If it did, the Supreme Court could STILL not rule against it. The Judiciary has NO POWER over the constitution... none... zilch... If it tries to create a law, it is what we call judicial tyranny. If someone introduces an amendment bill into the house saying abortion is murder and is illegal on the US constitution... The court can not touch it.

The matter of abortion is covered under the matters of allocation of authority to the state government.

Now... why is the Federal court system interfering with state rights? Since
Quote:
Therefore it is a matter of state determination. Not federal.
The matter should not have even gone to the Supreme Court. Why did it? The feminist movement forced it through litigation until the Federal courts stepped in. This is a standard tactic of liberals and other left-wing movements. They know they cannot win or force their own agendas through the senate, so they turn to the liberal court system. They fish for a judge till they find one sympathetic to their cause.

And standard practice for conservatives is to mis-inform the public to the point of supporting fictional agendas. Thus winning the elections and gaining massive amounts of economical and political influence.

See how that works? The broad sweeping negative stereotype-ish generalization? Oh, I'm sure theirs some truth to both our opinions. But not really relevant to make snide comments about the other sides approach. Isn't that subject for another debate?

What does this mean? Simply this. If the liberal/non-conservative population is forced to fish for a judge in order for there agenda to be forwarded, the majority must be conservative! Since majority rules in this democracy through the Legistative and Executive branchs... the Liberals are relegated to the one branch that CANNOT, under the constitution, create a law. Remember, roe v wade was not about abortion... it was about choice and the "right to privacy." A simple Executive order or Legislative bill can defeat this court ruling.

Hmm. Well, that sure is a tricky one. Isn't it? I guess I'm stumped on th... Oh wait, I just remember something someone once told me that applies just a bit here:

"yes... a democracy that helps protect the minority from the majority rule."

Good thing too? Otherwise those nasty conservatives might run roughshod over the liberals.

Look at what happened in Mass. The court could not rule gays had the right to get married. It could only force the legislature to pass a bill saying the state could not prohibit them! This is, again, judicial tyranny.

See above.

[Alex Poff]

@Abeth,

A beautifully written article. Oh, for the world to be filled with people of thought and discernment such as yourself. You are to be commended and applauded, especially for one so young (if I may be so bold).

[Alex Poff]

@Finellach,

You are absolutely correct! I believe the website is called marryanamerican.ca or something like that. Apparently, there has been a huge spike in web "hits" since last Tuesday. Go figure!

[Ledhead]

Jesus stated that he came to fufill the law not to destroy it.
The laws God ordained in the Old Testament included capital punishment.
There were laws that required whole families to be out to death for the crimes of one member.
Children could be put to death for disrespecting their parents.
There were many such laws.

There were two thieves being executed (one on either side) along with Jesus as he hung on a cross. One thief accepted Christ, but Jesus pardoned his sin, but he did not rake away the consequence of his sin. He said that today you will be with Me in Paradise. The thief still suffered his execution.

There can be pardon, but we still have to suffer the consequence of our actions.

Lame post IMO.
Do you think that that statement is significant of Jesus life and his preachings?!
As the son of God what would he say but that?
Jesus didn't interfere with peoples free will and freedom of choice.
Jesus preached love between people and forgiveness, and that should be the essence in calling yourself a christian. And not the bloodthirstyness that the right-wing christians display in the US.

[Stefan]

in quran it does stand that jesus christ and moses are prophets . well what do you say about that ? they do approve and state that jesus christ is a prophet but they do not belive that he is son of god.


I dont understand what you are getting at here. Are you trying to show that they are the same god or that the religions have similar beliefs? Id agree that they have similar practices and beliefs, thats not what im trying to agrue against. I just dont see how they can be the same yet have very different beliefs.

On a side note: since islam teachs that Jesus is a prophet and Jesus claimed that he was the messiah, wouldnt muslims believe he was the messiah?

In John 10:36, Jesus said, "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Obviously, Jesus was being accused of blasphemy for claiming to be God's Son. Where did He say it? In the previous chapter, John 9:35-38, where Jesus had just healed the man born blind, and the Pharisees cast the healed man out of the synagogue.

"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshiped him."




from another christians opinion:

"Allah had no son while God sent His Son to die for sinful men. Allah is "unknowable" while God seeks a personal relationship with His creation, man.

The spirit behind Islam is an entirely different spirit... a spirit that denies the deity of Jesus Christ. Any Christian who accepts the notion that Allah is God creates an impossible situation. Since the Qur'an contains our only revelation about Allah, they will be forced to look there as their authority. The Qur'an specifically denies the deity of Christ! All Christian witness ends right there. "


If you want to talk about it i have MSN messenger: StefanHaines@sympatico.ca

[Hector]

ofcourse we dont believe in the same god he only says the 3 religions are related to each other

and ALLAH does seek contact with humans orelse he wouldnt send all these profits now would he and send the Quran and the angels

but tell me what is the point of your message maybe i will discuss but i dont understand the point of your message


but the funny part is all these things u said is also the same with jews but still u guys consider them them as same religion right?

[Finellach]

ofcourse we dont believe in the same god he only says the 3 religions are related to each other

I don't agree with you. I personally think we all believe in the same God, the ways in which we practice our religion and the way we pay respect to this God is indeed different.
Even people who are atheists believe in the common human values, common morale values all religions include.

[Stefan]

ofcourse we dont believe in the same god he only says the 3 religions are related to each other

and ALLAH does seek contact with humans orelse he wouldnt send all these profits now would he and send the Quran and the angels

but tell me what is the point of your message maybe i will discuss but i dont understand the point of your message


but the funny part is all these things u said is also the same with jews but still u guys consider them them as same religion right?
Christians share the same text as the jews (the old testament) but we also have the new testament. The jews believe in the messiah, they just do not believe the messiah has come yet. The Jews believe in God the Father just as we do. Jews are not exactly the same relgion. In christian beliefs jews, just like other relgions, are not saved either.

[Dobber]

Lame post IMO.
Do you think that that statement is significant of Jesus life and his preachings?!
As the son of God what would he say but that?
Jesus didn't interfere with peoples free will and freedom of choice.
Jesus preached love between people and forgiveness, and that should be the essence in calling yourself a christian. And not the bloodthirstyness that the right-wing christians display in the US.


Oh, so you would have it that we just open the doors of the prison and set everyone free and let crime run rampant in the street! Good idea! And while I am at it, I will just quit paying my taxes and say, but my Governor or President is a christian and I must be forgiven and pardoned and not serve the consequences for not paying my taxes.

When the people committed their crime that got them the death penalty, they knew that there was the possibility of receiving a death sentence and they committed it anyway. That is what the law states is the consequence of their crime. A Governor can not change a law just because he does not agree with it. If he could, then he could say that he doesn't agree with abortion, that he thinks it is the murder of unborn children and should not be done, so there will be no more abortions performed in the state he governs. But he can not do that anymore than he can set aside a death sentence.
If you are going to say that capital punishmnet is wrong then you must also say that abortion is wrong and that assisted suicide is wrong.