Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 123
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I clearly handled my opinions on Christians and Muslim separately and honestly. Many of the concerns are religious base as claimed by the radical Islamic groups that make them. Plus I have consistently stated that non religious views are generally more important anyways.

    In other Terrorist threads we have discussed and sourced many of the published reasons radical Islamic groups oppose a democratic gov based on religious theology.....basically that God has the sole word on the rule of man. And that only only a Muslim leader can speak for God. So he must be the final word leader. And specifically states that democracy is an evil because we are then obeying the will of man and not God.

    It was very clear in my statement that the factions and ties were associated with radical Islamic groups that are terrorists or support terrorists justified by religious claims.
    You believe a supporter of terrorism who is Muslim could be a viable candidate for President of the US? That's what you're trying to say? That's what the question is within the context of this thread.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Now just think what the Moslems think of the Christians, and so the world goes round and round...

    Surur
    do not twist it into something it is not to make your own point by twisting mine. I ONLY addressed Radical Islamic Groups and their very own public statements......nothing more.

    In fact didn't I state that I might even vote for a Muslim candidate?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/07/2007 at 05:20 PM.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    You believe a supporter of terrorism who is Muslim could be a viable candidate for President of the US? That's what you're trying to say? That's what the question is within the context of this thread.
    Master of Spin. Where in the WORLD did you get that. I said I was open minded enough to consider the person even if their religious affiliation was declared Muslim. I said I would ask questions to verify that he is NOT in any way associated with any terrorist groups.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Master of Spin. Where in the WORLD did you get that. I said I was open minded enough to consider the person even if their religious affiliation was declared Muslim. I said I would ask questions to verify that he is NOT in any way associated with any terrorist groups.
    No spin intended, nor delivered. This thread is about the viability of the religion of a Presidential candidate. The subtext, therefore, is that a Party and support system is behind this candidate. Yet, you drone on about paranoid delusions about Terrorist affiliations. Try a paradigm-shift, please.
  5. #45  
    Answer already in your quote.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Answer already in your quote.
    Since the candidate you are asking questions of has already been vetted by those which far more depth of resources than you or I, your questions to this candidate equate to what, exactly?

    You, therefore, believe that Islam has the capacity to equate to Communism, in that it will disguise itself and infiltrate ... then surprise!?
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    do not twist it into something it is not to make your own point by twisting mine. I ONLY addressed Radical Islamic Groups and their very own public statements......nothing more.

    In fact didn't I state that I might even vote for a Muslim candidate?
    Please dont get upset. I was simply making the point that prejudice (which is what you are admitting to in the end) exists, and exists in everyone, and that you should anticipate prejudice to play a role in how others also react to you, and that its part of the problems in the world.

    Isn't this thread all about religious prejudice and discrimination in the end?
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    In a democracy, should people not be guided by who they chose to guide them, be it Richard Dawkins OR the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
    I meant "should" in the sense "I would prefer that" or "the country will be better off with".

    I don't want a litmus test that would legally bar people with faith from becoming eligible to run for the presidency.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by tirk View Post
    But with most religions, you can't be consistent in your beliefs and also "leave it where it belongs". It has to suffuse all of your life, and decision making.
    Indeed, most politicians in US today boast that they are "guided by" their faith and wear their faith on their sleeve. Unfortunately, the tactic seems to work for the most part.

    The role of religion in politics has increased compared to the past.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I thought Hitler was an atheist (not to mention vegetarian ) Or do you mean pandering to the people does not always result in the best candidate?
    Just because people _can_ elect someone doesn't mean that the decision is a good one for the country or the world. Hitler was initially elected into power.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    In fact didn't I state that I might even vote for a Muslim candidate?

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...mp;postcount=9
    Why no. No, you didn't, either in your archived post nor in any other in this thread. Nor would it matter after all you have said.

    So, forget the paradigm-shift. Like to take a shot or 2 of courage and tell us what you really want to say.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    I meant "should" in the sense "I would prefer that" or "the country will be better off with".
    I mean "should" like in the right to self-determination and the right of a country to make their own mistakes.

    Surur
  13. #53  
    I have always blamed the public for the government it elects.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    I have always blamed the public for the government it elects.
    Please cut us a little slack. With the best of intentions it is hard to get it right.
    Up the next election, my citizens; always the next election.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    So, forget the paradigm-shift. Like to take a shot or 2 of courage and tell us what you really want to say.
    Yet again, I will say that I did in the post you linked to where you said I did not. And then reaffirmed it in several follow up posts. It really is simple, maybe too simple. If a candidate was a Muslim I would have additional reservations when compared to a nonMuslim candidate but it would certainly not be an automatically vote against him on his religious affiliation alone. I would take the time to offer myself additional education about him...about his beliefs about the issues, his political platform, confirm no associations with any rogue radical organizations in his declared religion (just like I would want to know if a Christian candidate was associated with any rogue radical orgs that committed terrorist acts against abortion clinics or Muslims mosques), etc.. . That's it. That is my whole point I made. Nothing more and nothing less. No hidden agenda. No religious witch hunt. I would inquire like I would any other candidate and discover what opinions, his organization affiliations, his political standings, his past political decisions, his past experience, his plan for issues important to me, etc... and then decide.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/07/2007 at 11:56 PM.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Isn't this thread all about religious prejudice and discrimination in the end?
    This point I can fully agree with. But at least like I stated in my OP, I recognize where mine are and are willing to face them and adjust them with educating myself about it and willing to move if what I find addresses the issues important to me.....again just like any other candidate.

    This is exactly why I often vote for both Dem & Rep in the same election. I vote for the man, not for the org affiliations of any kind, be it political party, religion, country club they belong to, who their spouse or father is, or what hollywood celebrity endorses them.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/07/2007 at 11:59 PM.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Yet again, I will say that I did in the post you linked to where you said I did not. And then reafirmed it in several follow up posts. It really is simple, maybe too simple. If a candidate was a Muslim I would not be automatically voting against him on his religous affiliation alone without any additional education about him on my part...about his beliefs about the issues, his political platform, associations with any radical organizations, etc.. . That's it. That is my whole point I made. Nothing more and nothing less. No hidden agenda. No religious witch hunt. I would inquire like I would any other candidate and discover what opinions, his organization affiliations, his political standings, his past political decisions, his past experience, his plan for issues important to me, etc... and then decide.
    When you begin to mingle in qualifying terms like religious faction, association to terrorism. as the initial discussion of a Presidential candidate's Muslim faith, you imply a likelihood. No reasonable person assumes that every Methodist Presidential candidate has a likelihood of a relationship to a destructive group which wraps itself in Christianity, but is only focused on socioeconomic interests. Nor should any Presidential candidate be subjected to such low-brow, swift boat-type consideration.

    Statements such as this, where you intermingle terrorism specifically with Islam, you undermine your current even-handed portrayal of your opinion, just as your other soft-pedaled propa on this forum:
    In other Terrorist threads we have discussed and sourced many of the published reasons radical Islamic groups oppose a democratic gov based on religious theology.....basically that God has the sole word on the rule of man. And that only only a Muslim leader can speak for God. So he must be the final word leader. And specifically states that democracy is an evil because we are then obeying the will of man and not God.
    When you further underscored your intended meaning of the terms you use, is where I began to highlight that this discussion is about a Presidential candidate with political Party-backing and support organization who has already gone through the gauntlet of being vetted:
    It was very clear in my statement that the factions and ties were associated with radical Islamic groups that are terrorists or support terrorists justified by religious claims.
    Yet, you're stridently going to pursue your very own little vetting process to insure this Presidential candidate isn't planning on blowing up the White House after sneaking through the election:
    I said I would ask questions to verify that he is NOT in any way associated with any terrorist groups.
    Need another round? Last call!
  18.    #58  
    In polling done in part after Romney's speech, Newsweek is reporting that Huckerbee has surged past Romney 39 to 17 percent in Iowa -- or significantly more than 2 to 1.


    "...The most dramatic result to come out of the poll, which is based on telephone interviews with 1,408 registered Iowa voters on Dec. 5 and 6, is Huckabee's emergence from the shadows of the GOP race into the front runner's spot in just two months. The ordained Southern Baptist minister now leads Romney by a two-to-one margin, 39 percent to 17 percent, among likely GOP caucus-goers. In the last NEWSWEEK survey, conducted Sept. 26-27, Huckabee polled a mere 6 percent to Romney's 25 percent, which then led the field..."


    This is a reflection I think, of the "success" that Romney had in addressing the particular concerns of Christians and Evangelicals in that speech.

    Ironically I heard his flowery words as more directed toward a secular, semi-religious audience, than hardcore deeply believing Christian evangelicals.

    By not speaking specifically and candidly about the dogmatic eccentricities that they perceive in Mormons, Christians are likely to feel both condescended to and deceived.

    Thursday's Nightline highlighted another more prosaic fear that Christians have with Mormonism and Romney: Mormons aggressive recruiting of new converts.

    This is an issue that almost all faiths have in common, the fear of losing adherents to another belief.

    Moslems can be obliged to kill anyone who converts away from the faith. Historically Christians routinely attempted to convert Jews to Christianity, and murdered those who wouldn't.

    That Mormons are going around the globe (and america) out hustling Christians in recruiting and signing up new members -- and even converting Christians to Mormonism -- is felt as a visceral challenge to Christian identity.

    Christians see how a Mormon as President would make Mormon evangelizing much much easier and effective. (in effect legitimizing dogma that they want to categorize as the practice of a cult).
    Last edited by BARYE; 12/08/2007 at 02:01 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  19.    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I thought Hitler was an atheist (not to mention vegetarian ) Or do you mean pandering to the people does not always result in the best candidate?

    Surur
    My understanding was that he was raised a Catholic, and thought himself a Christian

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    That Mormons are going around the globe (and america) out hustling Christians in recruiting and signing up new members -- and even converting Christians to Mormonism -- is felt as a visceral challenge to Christian identity.

    Christians see how a Mormon as President would make Mormon evangelizing much much easier and effective. (in effect legitimizing dogma that they want to categorize as the practice of a cult).
    Hi Barye. Interesting theory. If true then would this make a lot of the outcry and distributing antimormon literature and statements more politically and/or money motivated?

    Since talking with my Mormons contacts over the years it is obvious that they are Christians I always found it kind of funny to hear that someone converted from Christian to Mormonism. It is just like saying that they converted from Christian to Baptist, 7th Day Adventist, Presbyterian, Jehovah Witness, Catholic, Born Again, etc..
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions