Qur'an 2:268
Satan threatens you with poverty and orders you to commit evil deeds, illegal sex, and sins; whereas God promises you forgiveness from Himself and bounty, and God is All-Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All-Knower.

And, of course, you should commit shining deeds of light, such as committing suicide while murdering as many children, women and men as you can. At least, so say many Imams and even some Ayatollahs.
Tell me, Jeffery, when those Imams and Ayatollahs urge young men of Islam to commit murder by suicide are they following Allah or Satan?

Counterquestion: In the Bible it's written "Thou shalt not kill" and "Love thy neighbor" and "Who is not against me is for me" - so when the priests blessed the weapons and soldiers at all of these wars and fights against other countries and other beliefs and other denominations, were they following God or Satan?
Answer this, and you found the answer to your question by yourself.

---

Account frozen...

Qur'an 2:268
Satan threatens you with poverty and orders you to commit evil deeds, illegal sex, and sins; whereas God promises you forgiveness from Himself and bounty, and God is All-Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All-Knower.

And, of course, you should commit shining deeds of light, such as committing suicide while murdering as many children, women and men as you can. At least, so say many Imams and even some Ayatollahs.
Tell me, Jeffery, when those Imams and Ayatollahs urge young men of Islam to commit murder by suicide are they following Allah or Satan?

Counterquestion: In the Bible it's written "Thou shalt not kill" and "Love thy neighbor" and "Who is not against me is for me" - so when the priests blessed the weapons and soldiers at all of these wars and fights against other countries and other beliefs and other denominations, were they following God or Satan?
Answer this, and you found the answer to your question by yourself.

Of course. But I was asking Jeffery.

Well Jeffery, got an answer yet son?

got an answer yet

Matthew 7:16
You will know them by their fruits.


Am I the only one to notice that billy and rush always seem to show up at the exact same time?
Hmm... Our tax dollars hard at work? Or just a coincidence? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Qur'an 2:268
Satan threatens you with poverty and orders you to commit evil deeds, illegal sex, and sins; whereas God promises you forgiveness from Himself and bounty, and God is All-Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All-Knower.

And, of course, you should commit shining deeds of light, such as committing suicide while murdering as many children, women and men as you can. At least, so say many Imams and even some Ayatollahs.
Tell me, Jeffery, when those Imams and Ayatollahs urge young men of Islam to commit murder by suicide are they following Allah or Satan?

Counterquestion: In the Bible it's written "Thou shalt not kill" and "Love thy neighbor" and "Who is not against me is for me" - so when the priests blessed the weapons and soldiers at all of these wars and fights against other countries and other beliefs and other denominations, were they following God or Satan?
Answer this, and you found the answer to your question by yourself.

Of course. But I was asking Jeffery.

Well Jeffery, got an answer yet son?

We really need to do something about the echo in here... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

We really need to do something about the echo in here...

Answer the question coward.

We really need to do something about the echo in here...

Answer the question coward.

Pardon me, but was this:

got an answer yet

Matthew 7:16
You will know them by their fruits.

not answer enough?

---

Account frozen...

Religion and the presidency

By Herbert G. Klein

May 24, 2007

Forty-seven years after voters appeared to have settled the question of whether a candidate's religion should have any bearing on his ability to serve as president of the United States, the issue again is looming as a question in the 2008 race for the White House.

The current debate is focused on Mitt Romney and his membership in the Mormon Church, but even Rudolph Giuliani is caught up in questions regarding his stand on abortion right and Pope Benedict XVI's recent hard line against Mexican lawmakers who advocate for women's reproductive rights.

Add to those factors the sudden death of Jerry Falwell, the conservative Christian leader, and rightly or wrongly, religion is again in the presidential spotlight. Does opposition to Mitt Romney based on his Mormon religion represent bigotry, or is it a fair factor in judging the character of a man who aspires to be president? What role, if any, should a candidate's personal religious belief play in a presidential campaign?

In 1928, Catholicism was considered a major issue when New York Gov. Al Smith, a Catholic, gained the Democratic nomination after three tries and then lost to Herbert Hoover, a Protestant, by 6 million votes. There were other issues such as a Tammany Hall scandal and prohibition, but the question of whether the pope would be able to dictate to the president was a key issue.

In 1960, John Kennedy attacked the religious problem early and aggressively. The Democratic nominee arranged to meet with a group of prominent Houston Protestant ministers in September and emerged from the meeting with the declaration from the pastors and from the candidate that church and state always should be separated. Kennedy said his religious beliefs were his private affair, but “if the time should ever come when my office would violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign from office.”

Long before the Kennedy meeting with the Houston ministers, Richard Nixon had given firm instructions to all of us on his staff that we must avoid making Kennedy's Catholicism an issue. That order remained in effect throughout the campaign.

Looking back, Kennedy probably gained support from some who did not want to be labeled “bigots.”

Once in office, Kennedy on numerous occasions proved that “he did not take orders from the pope,” and it appeared that religion was a past issue as far as the presidency was concerned.

John Kerry, a Catholic, ran against George Bush in 2004 but Kerry's religion was never an issue.

It is interesting that in the current contest for president, except for Romney and Giuliani, few people know what church the current candidates attend. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are Methodists, Fred Thompson is a member of the Church of Christ and Barack Obama has been active in the United Church of Christ. John McCain is an Episcopalian, and Giuliani and Chris Dodd are Catholics. Duncan Hunter is a Baptist.

President Bush states his church denomination as Methodist, but he frequently attends St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington and the Prairie Chapel Church near his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Except for the flare-up over Giuliani, a Catholic who supports a woman's right to choose, no questions regarding religious affiliation have been directed at anyone other than Romney, a Mormon, who has served as a governor of Massachusetts, a predominantly Catholic state.

In answer to a question whether the president believes a candidate's personal religion should be an issue in selecting a president, Dan Bartlett, assistant to the president for communications, says: “The president believes his faith is an important part of who he is as a person and a leader. However, he believes the great strengths of our country is that people from all walks of life and faiths are treated equally. The American people choose a president based upon their qualifications and fitness to do the job.”

The Mormon issue was not raised strongly when Mitt Romney's father, Gov. George Romney of Michigan, ran for president against Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller and others in 1960. Catholicism, not Mormonism, was the issue. Few, if any, have questioned the Mormon affiliation of Harry Reid, Democratic leader of the Senate.

Some evangelicals look at the rapid growth of the Mormon Church on a worldwide basis and label it a cult. They have a right to their own views, and, yet, in the ordinary life of American communities, Mormon leaders are considered mainstream.

Some question the secrecy of Mormon services in the church's temples, and yet in recent years some of the most liberal doctrines have been enunciated by Presbyterian and Methodist leaders with only limited outcries in local congregations. I have been among those quiet Presbyterians.

A few years ago a friend of mine, San Diegan Leon Parma, and I met with the first and second presidents of the Mormon Church to discuss an anti-Mormon column published in The San Diego Union-Tribune. We found no mysteries as we settled the dispute in a few moments and spent the rest of an hour discussing topics ranging from Mormonism in South Africa to football at Brigham Young and the University of Utah.

Judge J. Clifford Wallace, a Mormon, was honored in 2006 as the American attorney of the year. He tells the story of approaching Harold B. Lee, a member of the Mormon Quorum of 12, and asking for advice when he was about to become a federal judge. Wallace later was under serious consideration by Nixon to become a Supreme Court justice. “If there is a dispute between church and state,” Lee said, “obey the law of the land.” Wallace has followed that as he has traveled the world preaching on the importance of the “rule of law.”

In my view, anyone who criticizes a presidential candidate for his personal religion is likely to be a bigot or someone playing politics. Our Constitution clearly separates church and state. Concern over which church or synagogue or any house of worship a candidate attends should not be an issue in the year 2008 or after.

Richard Land, a Southern Baptist, states the issue clearly: “We vote for commander in chief, not theologian in chief.”

Klein is a national fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, retired editor in chief of Copley Newspapers and former Nixon White House director of communications.

---

me@rescam.org

We really need to do something about the echo in here...

Answer the question coward.

Pardon me, but was this:

got an answer yet

Matthew 7:16
You will know them by their fruits.

not answer enough?

No. I want Jeffery's answer, not yours, not any vague generalization, not quotation of scripture.

Religion and the presidency

By Herbert G. Klein

May 24, 2007

<snip>
Kennedy said his religious beliefs were his private affair, but “if the time should ever come when my office would violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign from office.”

That's a reasonable statement! I've been a fan of JFK since I read about him first time.

In my view, anyone who criticizes a presidential candidate for his personal religion is likely to be a bigot or someone playing politics. Our Constitution clearly separates church and state. Concern over which church or synagogue or any house of worship a candidate attends should not be an issue in the year 2008 or after.
Richard Land, a Southern Baptist, states the issue clearly: “We vote for commander in chief, not theologian in chief.”

Sure. No American wants a theocracy, not even the citizens of the "Bible Belt" - but from where I stand, I would be VERY concerned if a member of The Church Of Satan, or of Scientology (to name only two) wanted to candidate for president or any "higher" government office. Just out of cautiousness...

---

Account frozen...

Sure. No American wants a theocracy, not even the citizens of the "Bible Belt" - but from where I stand, I would be VERY concerned if a member of The Church Of Satan, or of Scientology (to name only two) wanted to candidate for president or any "higher" government office. Just out of cautiousness...

But what if it's NO religion? If an atheist was running for president would that person get any less or more press than the other God-believing candidates?

---

me@rescam.org

Sure. No American wants a theocracy, not even the citizens of the "Bible Belt" - but from where I stand, I would be VERY concerned if a member of The Church Of Satan, or of Scientology (to name only two) wanted to candidate for president or any "higher" government office. Just out of cautiousness...

But what if it's NO religion? If an atheist was running for president would that person get any less or more press than the other God-believing candidates?

They surely would find any other topic to get this person as much press as the others.

---

Account frozen...

Sure. No American wants a theocracy, not even the citizens of the "Bible Belt" - but from where I stand, I would be VERY concerned if a member of The Church Of Satan, or of Scientology (to name only two) wanted to candidate for president or any "higher" government office. Just out of cautiousness...

But what if it's NO religion? If an atheist was running for president would that person get any less or more press than the other God-believing candidates?

They surely would find any other topic to get this person as much press as the others.

With, as Rush Limbaugh names them, the "drive by media" the religion question would probably receive little or no attention.

Sure. No American wants a theocracy, not even the citizens of the "Bible Belt" - but from where I stand, I would be VERY concerned if a member of The Church Of Satan, or of Scientology (to name only two) wanted to candidate for president or any "higher" government office. Just out of cautiousness...

But what if it's NO religion? If an atheist was running for president would that person get any less or more press than the other God-believing candidates?

They surely would find any other topic to get this person as much press as the others.

With, as Rush Limbaugh names them, the "drive by media" the religion question would probably receive little or no attention.

Hmmm...I'm not sure about that one, Bill. Look at the uproar that went on when Obama wanted to take his oath of office on the Koran rather than a Bible.

IMO...if a candidate was an atheist ( and publicly said so )he/she would have a very difficult campaign ahead of him/her. I honestly don't think that person would last very long in the race. The " drive by media " would jump all over it for a week or two, but the opposing candidates would make sure ( using the political TV ads, of course ) that voters didn't forget it.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Sure. No American wants a theocracy, not even the citizens of the "Bible Belt" - but from where I stand, I would be VERY concerned if a member of The Church Of Satan, or of Scientology (to name only two) wanted to candidate for president or any "higher" government office. Just out of cautiousness...

But what if it's NO religion? If an atheist was running for president would that person get any less or more press than the other God-believing candidates?

They surely would find any other topic to get this person as much press as the others.

With, as Rush Limbaugh names them, the "drive by media" the religion question would probably receive little or no attention.

Hmmm...I'm not sure about that one, Bill. Look at the uproar that went on when Obama wanted to take his oath of office on the Koran rather than a Bible.

IMO...if a candidate was an atheist ( and publicly said so )he/she would have a very difficult campaign ahead of him/her. I honestly don't think that person would last very long in the race. The " drive by media " would jump all over it for a week or two, but the opposing candidates would make sure ( using the political TV ads, of course ) that voters didn't forget it.

An atheist, if he were an actual atheist, would have no problem with using the traditional trappings of the ritual of the Oath of Office. If one is atheist (a- "without" + theos "a god"), rather than anti-religionist, elements of religious rites are matters of supreme indifference.

An atheist, if he were an actual atheist, would have no problem with using the traditional trappings of the ritual of the Oath of Office. If one is atheist (a- "without" + theos "a god"), rather than anti-religionist, elements of religious rites are matters of supreme indifference.

I agree. But that wasn't my point. <y point was that if a candidate proclaimed publicly that he/she was an Atheist, the biggest thing that you would hear in political ads would be the phrase " The other candidate doesn't even BELIEVE IN GOD!!! Do you really want this person to be running your country?? "

And half the country ( regardless of the candidate's qualifications ) would shudder and gasp and say " Oh my goodness NO!!!!! We can't have someone who doesn't believe in God running this country!!! "

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

An atheist, if he were an actual atheist, would have no problem with using the traditional trappings of the ritual of the Oath of Office. If one is atheist (a- "without" + theos "a god"), rather than anti-religionist, elements of religious rites are matters of supreme indifference.

I agree. But that wasn't my point. <y point was that if a candidate proclaimed publicly that he/she was an Atheist, the biggest thing that you would hear in political ads would be the phrase " The other candidate doesn't even BELIEVE IN GOD!!! Do you really want this person to be running your country?? "

And half the country ( regardless of the candidate's qualifications ) would shudder and gasp and say " Oh my goodness NO!!!!! We can't have someone who doesn't believe in God running this country!!! "

Even in Germany, which is IMHO more secular than the USA, there was an outcry in several media when Schröder became Chancellor, and spoke his Oath of Office without the finishing sentence "So help me God"... Not that this sentence were compulsory, but I think a person in charge should respect the beliefs of others even though he/she does not share them.
Even atheists do say "Oh my God!" or "Thank God ..." So why not just saying (or better: quoting) "So help me God"? Does this phrase, quoted by an atheist, make him/her unreliable?

---

Account frozen...

I dont think so Thorin.
To many people saying something they don´t believe.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

An atheist, if he were an actual atheist, would have no problem with using the traditional trappings of the ritual of the Oath of Office. If one is atheist (a- "without" + theos "a god"), rather than anti-religionist, elements of religious rites are matters of supreme indifference.

I agree. But that wasn't my point. <y point was that if a candidate proclaimed publicly that he/she was an Atheist, the biggest thing that you would hear in political ads would be the phrase " The other candidate doesn't even BELIEVE IN GOD!!! Do you really want this person to be running your country?? "

And half the country ( regardless of the candidate's qualifications ) would shudder and gasp and say " Oh my goodness NO!!!!! We can't have someone who doesn't believe in God running this country!!! "

Even in Germany, which is IMHO more secular than the USA, there was an outcry in several media when Schröder became Chancellor, and spoke his Oath of Office without the finishing sentence "So help me God"... Not that this sentence were compulsory, but I think a person in charge should respect the beliefs of others even though he/she does not share them.
Even atheists do say "Oh my God!" or "Thank God ..." So why not just saying (or better: quoting) "So help me God"? Does this phrase, quoted by an atheist, make him/her unreliable?

An atheist would not care. If he is a true atheist, they are just empty words and simple politeness dictates that the empty words be spoken because they are important to those listening. Even if you do not believe in the religious trappings of the rite of office, it is still poite to following the form of the rite as an earnest of intent to follow the spirit of the Oath of Office. So Chancellor Schröder was being rather rude to his hosts (the German people), not a major thing. And in my direct experience, when bad things are happening (i.e. bullets, grenades, explosions, fires, etc.), atheists were asking God's help along with the rest of us.

Even in Germany, which is IMHO more secular than the USA, there was an outcry in several media when Schröder became Chancellor, and spoke his Oath of Office without the finishing sentence "So help me God"... Not that this sentence were compulsory, but I think a person in charge should respect the beliefs of others even though he/she does not share them.
Even atheists do say "Oh my God!" or "Thank God ..." So why not just saying (or better: quoting) "So help me God"? Does this phrase, quoted by an atheist, make him/her unreliable?

An atheist would not care. If he is a true atheist, they are just empty words and simple politeness dictates that the empty words be spoken because they are important to those listening. Even if you do not believe in the religious trappings of the rite of office, it is still poite to following the form of the rite as an earnest of intent to follow the spirit of the Oath of Office. So Chancellor Schröder was being rather rude to his hosts (the German people), not a major thing. And in my direct experience, when bad things are happening (i.e. bullets, grenades, explosions, fires, etc.), atheists were asking God's help along with the rest of us.

Some do. Others become religion-haters, like my mother did, when my brother died on cancer. By coincident, the last hospital where he was treated was a Christian one, and when the nurse came to tell my mother the sad news, she added: "God has taken your son away to deliver him from his suffering." From this moment on, God was - in the mind of my mother - the Bad Guy who stole her son.
And when I was baptized in 1993, only 6 years later, it was not only an ideological thing for her to hate the fact of my baptism, I was also a traitor to her! She saw the Certificate of Baptism, and said: "Today God stole my other son, too!"

---

Account frozen...