Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 68 of 68
  1. #61  
    Isn't the Christian anti-gay agenda based on passages in the Bible?

    It is ALWAYS a bad idea to justify any policy based on ancient texts. We can use these teachings as a germ or source of ideas, but when it gets translated to laws, it is better to debate/discuss/argue these on neutral, non-religious grounds (to the extent possible).
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  2. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #62  
    But do bible-based stonings happen in modern times as they did in ancient times?
    I gotta have more cowbell
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    Isn't the Christian anti-gay agenda based on passages in the Bible?

    It is ALWAYS a bad idea to justify any policy based on ancient texts. We can use these teachings as a germ or source of ideas, but when it gets translated to laws, it is better to debate/discuss/argue these on neutral, non-religious grounds (to the extent possible).
    In that discussion, ultimately the participants have to reach accord on what is "right" and what is "wrong." Or, if those terms are too religious, "acceptable" and "unacceptable."

    In so doing, each opinion will need to have a rationale.

    What I have found in my pursuit of such ideals is that the principles in the Bible turn out to be the most rationale and beneficial (to the society as a whole and to the individual citizens). Note, though, that my basis is not on the fact that the text is ancient or inspired, but on the basis that the principles themselves are suitable and effective.

    It seems that some people can not look past the religious nature of the text to see the value of the text.

    Take as a brief example the 10 commandments. Drop the first 3 and I suspect we could reach fairly quick consensus on these social priorities:

    1. Day of rest
    2. Respect for elders (especially, but not only, Parents)
    3. Right to Life
    4. Marriage (and vows in general)
    5. Private Property
    6. Honesty/Integrity
    7. Individual Responsibility

    The value of the first three is that of establishing shared context for why the priorities are in fact priorities. In truth, without a standard that exists outside of the society which can provide direction to the society, the priorities are subject to the whims of the present generation.
  4. #64  
    And so it was today that a Ellison took his oath of office on a Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson. It’s perhaps ironic since Jefferson was one of the first to argue that the United States should not negotiate with Islamic aggression when, as the U.S. Ambassador to France, he argued that America should not pay a $60,000 ransom to the Pasha of Algiers for the return of two captured U.S. vessels and their crew.

    What would have been more fitting is if they had played the Marines Hymn during the signing. “From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli…”
  5. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #65  
    not sure I follow, hoovs. I see the irony in that he swore on a quran owned by thomas jefferson, but what do his arguments against negotiating with islamic aggression and paying ransoms have to do with swearing ellison in on a quran? not trying to be argumentative, I just don't follow you're meaning there..
    I gotta have more cowbell
  6. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #66  
    ... unless the US ships were the aggressors when they attacked or entered Algeria's seas and ended up being held captive. I don't know, not following ya.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002 View Post
    not sure I follow, hoovs. I see the irony in that he swore on a quran owned by thomas jefferson, but what do his arguments against negotiating with islamic aggression and paying ransoms have to do with swearing ellison in on a quran? not trying to be argumentative, I just don't follow you're meaning there..
    The pirates of the Barbary Coast (North Africa) had a nasty habit of pillaging merchant ships that passed through the Mediterranean and holding them and their crew for ransom. For centuries, European countries were forced to pay ransom and/or tribute to the Muslim rulers of the Barbary States (Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli) in order for their ships to have safe passage. Today, we call that extortion. Throughout his career, Jefferson opposed the common practice of paying tribute to these states believing they would only demand more and more money. Instead, he thought it best to wage war with them and started with Tripoli in 1801. In fact, he was in a minority with this view but his quotes on the subject are pretty clear:

    On July 11, 1786, ambassador Jefferson said, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war."

    On August 18, 1786: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both."

    On Dec 26, 1786: "From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money, it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them."

    On May 13, 1791, as Secretary of State, he said: "lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever,"

    And finally, in 1801 as President, he said: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

    Initially, the power of the US forces shook apart the Barbary alliance. But soon after, a ship called Philadelphia was captured, followed by a growing contempt for the war by Jefferson’s countrymen, political opponents and even members of his own cabinet. It wasn’t until four years later that the second Treaty of Tripoli brought an end to the first Barbary War and the first United States war with a Muslim state.

    Unfortunately, the Barbary States continued their three hundred year old practice of sacking ships and taking European Christians as slaves for the next several decades until they were colonized by the Europeans themselves.

    Two hundred years later, a copy of the Quran owned by the very man who became the first American president to wage an unpopular war against an aggressive Islamic state was used to swear in a United States Representative after an election that would highlight America’s disdain for a current war against an aggressive Islamic state. I think there’s a bit of irony there. The only question that remains is whether history will prove the current war to be as justified as the first.
    Last edited by hoovs; 01/05/2007 at 10:07 PM.
  8. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #68  
    Wow,thats an impressive historical account, hoovs. Thank you. I see your point completely now and have to agree. We can only hope, as you've said, that this war leads to the same successes that the first one did.
    Incidentally, your explanation here has made me want to read more about Jefferson and our history in that region.
    I gotta have more cowbell
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions