any "nice" conservatives out there?

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by Rudey
Good. I just wanted to see what your mood was before my posts started getting more prolific.

-Rudey

Good deal. Feeling very libetarian today. Tommorow, I might pull a North Korea.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by moe.ron
Can you back this up?

Which Muslim nations do offer freedom of religion?

Definitely not Iran nor Saudi Arabia. In fact those are very repressive nations as are most Muslim nations.

And the United States is steeped in a Christian heritage and will continue to be so for quite a bit in the future. Why shouldn't it? Most of Europe is too.

-Rudey

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by Rudey
Which Muslim nations do offer freedom of religion?

Definitely not Iran nor Saudi Arabia. In fact those are very repressive nations as are most Muslim nations.

And the United States is steeped in a Christian heritage and will continue to be so for quite a bit in the future. Why shouldn't it? Most of Europe is too.

-Rudey

Malaysia

Although not technically an islamic nation, Indonesia guaranteed freedom of religion.

I would argue that Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic country. It is a monarchy.

I would even go further and say there is no Islamic country, if we mean that the entire judicial and government system is based on the Qur'an.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by moe.ron
Malaysia

Although not technically an islamic nation, Indonesia guaranteed freedom of religion.

I would argue that Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic country. It is a monarchy.

I would even go further and say there is no Islamic country, if we mean that the entire judicial and government system is based on the Qur'an.

Ummm so Indonesia isn't an Islamic nation or is it?

I don't really know why you want to argue against an established fact. Saudi Arabia's citizens are 100% Muslim and it is governed according to Shari'a. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/sa.html

And so in your last line you say there are no Islamic countries but in your first line Indonesia/Malaysia might be? Choose.

-Rudey

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by Rudey
Ummm so Indonesia isn't an Islamic nation or is it?

I don't really know why you want to argue against an established fact. Saudi Arabia's citizens are 100% Muslim and it is governed according to Shari'a. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/sa.html

And so in your last line you say there are no Islamic countries but in your first line Indonesia/Malaysia might be? Choose.

-Rudey

If I use her definition on what constitution a nation being religious based nation, then Indonesia is. According to her, the US is a Christian nation. Then, Indonesia is an Islamic nation. However, if we go technical, neither the US is a Christian nation nor Indonesia. US is a secular nation that prohibit the estbalishment of religion by the government. For Indonesia, it's not entirely true. There is a ministry of religion. It is has little power and is more of a think tank. However, it is funded by the taxpayer. There is also a Shari'a court in some district. The Shari'a court can be over turned by the "regular court."

Back to the topic, Indonesia guarantees religious freedom according to its constitution.

Article 29 - Section 2: The State guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by MysticCat81
Actually, it still is a criminal offense (rarely enforced) in some states, and it used to be illegal in most states.

I was referring mostly to federal law - obviously the 'rape and assault' portion moved from there, but regardless, a few random state laws created far after the framers does not a point disprove, no?

I'm assuming you're not arguing the central point, which was that the laws were based more on 'infringing upon others' than 'what the Bible says is wrong'.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Rudey
And the United States is steeped in a Christian heritage and will continue to be so for quite a bit in the future. Why shouldn't it? Most of Europe is too.

This is true, but barely even tangential to the argument. The foundation of the US was certainly not steeped in the principles of Christianity, which is what we're trying to relay to Conniebama here.

The overwhelming majority of the US has been Christian since its inception, and no one's arguing the influence or power of that bloc - actually I immediately retract . . . I'm not arguing that. Others are, which is pretty wrong.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by moe.ron
If I use her definition on what constitution a nation being religious based nation, then Indonesia is. According to her, the US is a Christian nation. Then, Indonesia is an Islamic nation. However, if we go technical, neither the US is a Christian nation nor Indonesia. US is a secular nation that prohibit the estbalishment of religion by the government. For Indonesia, it's not entirely true. There is a ministry of religion. It is has little power and is more of a think tank. However, it is funded by the taxpayer. There is also a Shari'a court in some district. The Shari'a court can be over turned by the "regular court."

Back to the topic, Indonesia guarantees religious freedom according to its constitution.

What other Islamic nations offer freedom of religion moe.ron?

And while America was not created with Christianity as its official religion, it is a country that is steeped in Christian history. Quite a bit of the populace has selected leaders based on this. There have been 4 great awakenings (see Robert Fogel) that have controlled the fundamental structure of the state and the issues which are voted on. At the same time, it can be said that America is diverse in this age - especially since certain migration restrictions were lifted in the 1960s (see Diana Eck).

Hence the summary is:
1) America has a strong link to Christianity while Christianity is not the official religion.
2) There is a sense of tolerance that is coupled with the influx of immigrants in the last half of this century which led to diversification of religions
3) This sense of tolerance and freedom of religion is rare in Muslim countries and actually the opposite - a downright contempt for non-Muslim dhimis - has occured in most nations leading to repression (especially in the examples stated earlier of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran).

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by KSig RC
This is true, but barely even tangential to the argument. The foundation of the US was certainly not steeped in the principles of Christianity, which is what we're trying to relay to Conniebama here.

The overwhelming majority of the US has been Christian since its inception, and no one's arguing the influence or power of that bloc - actually I immediately retract . . . I'm not arguing that. Others are, which is pretty wrong.

To totally put aside Christianity even as playing any role in the foundation of this country is ridiculous. Ethical and moral problems are driven mainly through technology and technology has allowed for a whole new set of issues in this day that conflict with the views (Christian or not) from centuries earlier. Very few people would argue that the founders of this nation would be fighting to keep abortion legal for example.

Christianity (and the flip side) have had a strong relationship to America since it's founding, now, and will in the future. The rise in religion really came in that First Great Awakening period. Christianity however, was not the "official" religion of the country in the past. Who knows if it will be in the future.

-Rudey

[honeychile]

Originally posted by moe.ron
Malaysia

Although not technically an islamic nation, Indonesia guaranteed freedom of religion.

I would argue that Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic country. It is a monarchy.

I would even go further and say there is no Islamic country, if we mean that the entire judicial and government system is based on the Qur'an.

If Malaysia does offer freedom of religion, it's news to me. It's also news to my sorority sister, who was legally killed by her husband in Malaysia!!

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by honeychile
If Malaysia does offer freedom of religion, it's news to me. It's also news to my sorority sister, who was legally killed by her husband in Malaysia!!

What does that have to do with the freedom to choose a religion?

Islam is the dominant religion there, but I have a friend who grew up there whose family is Buddhist, and I know Hinduism and Christianity are also practiced there.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
What does that have to do with the freedom to choose a religion?

Islam is the dominant religion there, but I have a friend who grew up there whose family is Buddhist, and I know Hinduism and Christianity are also practiced there.

Those religions can be practiced in quite a few countries but the governments can still be repressive of those that don't practice the majority religion. There is not full freedom of religion.

-Rudey

[honeychile]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
What does that have to do with the freedom to choose a religion?

Islam is the dominant religion there, but I have a friend who grew up there whose family is Buddhist, and I know Hinduism and Christianity are also practiced there.

Obviously, the very mention of "Malaysia" hits a hot button for me. I know that people can practice other religions, but there are also huge signs saying, "Muslims may not enter here" or "Christians not permitted here" etc. I'll be the first to say that I'm talking out of emotion, and probably out of turn. But I will go to my grave making sure that people don't forget my sister - the last letter I received from her was smuggled out of the country, and she begged me to tell people about Malaysia.

I'll shut up now.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Rudey
To totally put aside Christianity even as playing any role in the foundation of this country is ridiculous.

Again, that's not what I'm saying - I'm merely pointing out that its role was not primary compared to other interests. I'll be the last person to out the learning model of perception and application. However, the fact that a relatively large number of influencial framers had serious disagreements with the Christian churches of the time makes it difficult for me to assign more than a tertiary role (although I will not dispute that role's existence or influence).

[Rudey]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Again, that's not what I'm saying - I'm merely pointing out that its role was not primary compared to other interests. I'll be the last person to out the learning model of perception and application. However, the fact that a relatively large number of influencial framers had serious disagreements with the Christian churches of the time makes it difficult for me to assign more than a tertiary role (although I will not dispute that role's existence or influence).

And I am saying it did play a role and the issues of today were not around at the time of the framing of the constitution.

People can beat this all they want but what is the discussion about at this point? Does Connie disagree that the US did not have Christianity as its official religion? Do you and others disagree the character and policies of this country are STRONGLY influenced by Christianity?

What is the discussion about? To me it just seems like personal attacks, sometimes veiled, over and over without point. The truth of the matter is quite a few people are in this thread, on each and every side, knowing nothing about the topics of history nor religion.

-Rudey