[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by Becky

do you know what his actually statement was?

Yes -- I quoted it earlier. And again, he sounded about as sincere as a surly teenager. It was a political move, nothing more.

Originally Posted by Becky

see, this is where I hold two fundementally different view points then you.

1st. I actually don't believe that those Sharia laws are extremest views in the same way that the abuses committed in the name of the bible are extremest. Those Sharia laws are extremest only in the sense that many Muslims have moved past and ignored aspects of their scriptures. While as Christians, people have taken scripture way out of context, the "extremest" Muslims have not. They are the ones who are following their scripture closely. If we are going to compare, then we would have to believe it is okay to "reinterpret the bible based on our times" which is a common miss belief among people about Christianity.

The point is that neither Muslim extremists nor Christian extremists represent the views of the majority of either faith. I have friends who are Muslims, and they feel no more kinship with Islamic terrorists than I do with the gunman who committed that massacre in Norway.

And if we're going to talk about following scriptures closely, there are plenty of Old Testament passages that would lead to some pretty barbaric behavior if we followed them to the letter today. Obviously, you and I agree that we would have to take those verses way out of context to justify ourselves, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Muslims in America feel the same way about people who use the Koran to justify acts of terror.

Originally Posted by Becky

2nd. I disagree that it is paranoia to think it possible for Sharia law to seep into the U.S. It is slowly becoming part of many governments around the world as Muslims increase in influence. That's not paranoia, its just looking at statistics. Is our country likely to ever allow any ideas that would upset the feminist movement? That really depends on how unpopular they make themselves. It is entirely possible that, in our grand children's life time, public opinion will once again be against women. Do I think we should run our government or lives in fear of that? No, absolutely not. But I don't see it as paranoia either.

The paranoia as I see it is based on two huge assumptions:

1) That all Muslims working in U.S. government have an agenda to try and subvert U.S. law and replace it with Sharia law.

2) That our First Amendment is flimsy enough to allow for an Islamic takeover.

I don't think we have any reason to make either assumption. Sure, there are plenty of Muslims out there who are interested in turning America into an Islamic nation. There are also plenty of Christians (probably a lot more) who are interested in turning America into an exclusively Christian nation. The First Amendment is designed to protect BOTH groups. That's a key difference between America and many other countries. And there are plenty of people of both faiths who are committed to protecting each others' freedoms.

Originally Posted by Becky

Yes, actually, it IS inappropriate to berate a professional anything. Or a non professional. Have you really berated someone before? Berating people is NOT okay. Jesus's words to the pharisees wasn't even berating them.

Berating means: to scold or condemn vehemently and at length

Based on that definition, I'm pretty sure Jesus was berating the Pharisees. Sometimes vehement condemnation is called for.

Originally Posted by Becky

That's not appropriate. The thing I HATE about politics, is because we believe, since they're going to be running our country, we ought to stop treating them like human beings, and start treating them like target practice. We do everything we can to break them down, and beat them up. Did you ever wonder if maybe part of the reason our government is so messed up, is because we no longer elect real people. We elect people who are forced to put on a facade of perfection for us, to hold up this - right words, right ideas, right actions, right past- and we in-humanize them. We do this to each other in the church too, we expect believers to be a certain way, to behave right, talk right, think right, and we just become fake. Fake government, fake church, fake change. And then we all sit around and complain about them being so fake, and yet it is our own faults.

I agree with you. Politicians are fallible human beings who deserve to be treated with respect even when they mess up. But it's possible to respect someone while still calling them out on a mistake. I admit that I resort to name-calling too often, and it's something I'm trying to work on. But how am I dehumanizing Herman Cain by pointing out that his comments about Muslims are offensive? What about Muslims who feel dehumanized by Cain's second-class treatment of them and their faith?

Originally Posted by Becky

1st. encouraging people not to vote for someone can be done without berating them. The only reason the media can't do that, is because they have to pretend to be unbiased.. so they can't just say "hey, we think you shouldn't vote for this guy, and hears why" they have to tear the person down until they've convinced people that he's satan himself, and will ruin the country if voted for... while never openly admitting that they're telling you not to vote for them.

Again, I agree with you. I think political discourse is full of ridiculous exaggerations -- and I'm pretty sure the majority of people who spread them don't believe half of what they're saying. I've literally heard Obama referred to as the anti-Christ, and I constantly hear people claiming that he's "trying to ruin the country." Really? Our elected president has an ulterior motive to ruin the country that he's governing? Demonizing people isn't productive; I think we agree on that. I just don't understand how I'm demonizing or berating a candidate by pointing out that he's made some hurtful statements and refused to take responsibility for them.

Originally Posted by Becky

2nd. As believers in Jesus Christ, who ends up president should not be such a fear for us. It really doesn't matter who is president. And I'm not saying that because I believe that our government is hopelessly lost, I'm saying that because ANY government, run by human beings, is going to continue to become more corrupt, break apart, get confusing and hurt people. The only answer to the evil around us, isn't better government, isn't for the government to come in and fix itself, fix our economy, fix our healthcare, fix our national security and standing with other nations... that's not the answer. The answer is Jesus. And maybe that sounds silly, but its true.

Believe me, I'm not under the impression that ANYBODY we put in the White House is going to deliver us from evil. Only God is all-powerful, and I believe that he can work good through any human leader, no matter how misguided. But I don't think it's wrong to want to be involved in the world around us. Governments are important. I don't think being involved in politics means frantically searching for the second incarnation of Jesus and voting him or her into office. But I do believe Christians have good reason to care about our earthly authorities.

[Becky]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

Yes -- I quoted it earlier. And again, he sounded about as sincere as a surly teenager. It was a political move, nothing more.

I meant the statement he was apologizing FOR not the apology. I could really care less about what he said for an apology. that should be obvious by what i've said so far

I really can't say anything more until I know what it is he actually said that got you all angry in the first place. Maybe I would understand your comments in a different way, if I knew what he actually said.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by Becky

I meant the statement he was apologizing FOR not the apology. I could really care less about what he said for an apology. that should be obvious by what i've said so far

I really can't say anything more until I know what it is he actually said that got you all angry in the first place. Maybe I would understand your comments in a different way, if I knew what he actually said.

Ah, my bad. Here are a few of the things he's said.

From an interview with Christianity Today:

1) "The role of Muslims in American society is for them to be allowed to practice their religion freely, which is part of our First Amendment. The role of Muslims in America is not to convert the rest of us to the Muslim religion. That I resent. Because we are a Judeo-Christian nation, from the fact that 85 percent of us are self-described Christians, or evangelicals, or practicing the Jewish faith. Eighty-five percent. One percent of the practicing religious believers in this country are Muslim.

And so I push back and reject them trying to convert the rest of us. And based upon the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion, you know, they have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them. Now, I know that there are some peaceful Muslims who don't go around preaching or practicing that. Well, unfortunately, we can't sit back and tolerate the radical ones simply because we know that there are some of them who don't believe in that aspect of the Muslim religion. So their role is to be allowed to practice their religion freely, just like we should be allowed to practice our religion freely, and not try to convert the rest of us."

-http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/marchweb-only/qahermancain.html?start=4

2) He has said several times that he would not be comfortable appointing a Muslim to his administration unless they could "prove" their loyalty to the United States. He also said that he wouldn't subject a Mormon or a Catholic to the same kind of test, "because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions."

From an interview with John King of CNN:

"KING: But, sir, the Constitution Article VI, Clause III of the Constitution says no religion test shall ever be required as a quality case to any office or public trust under the United States. Isn't that a religious test?

CAIN: John, I just say it. It wasn't going to be an absolute religious test. The question that was asked to me in that clip that you showed was, would I be comfortable? Now, I said, no, I would not be comfortable. And the way I would get comfortable is in a one-on- one interview. I never said that I was going to discriminate against Muslims or any other religion for that matter. But I am going to take extra precautions if a Muslim person who is competent wants to work in my administration."

-http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1106/10/jkusa.01.html

3) He's said that communities should have the right to ban the construction of new mosques if they make the public uncomfortable. When asked about a proposed Islamic Center in Tennessee, he said, "It is an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion. And I don't agree with what's happening, because this isn't an innocent mosque." Later, in an interview with Chris Wallace, he defended himself by saying, "Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state. They're using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it."

-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwvsbI2VyjI

He's also recently claimed that many black people are only still in favor of Obama because they've been brainwashed, and that he believes all gay people are gay by choice. I don't have time to look up citations for those right now, but you can Google them. Suffice to say, a lot of the things he's said and continues to say bother me, and it bothers me that his fan base doesn't seem to have any problem with them.

[TheProdigalModern]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

I don't have time to look up citations for those right now, but you can Google them. Suffice to say, a lot of the things he's said and continues to say bother me, and it bothers me that his fan base doesn't seem to have any problem with them.

My guess is that is because his fan base agrees with him on those things. I have heard all of those things from folks who align themselves with the Tea Party. I know that individual members are not necessarily representative of the whole, but neither is Herman Cain.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

Why?

Because I can't think of any good reason why I shouldn't be.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

Because I can't think of any good reason why I shouldn't be.

I agree that the idea of living under Sharia law is frightening. I just don't understand why we have any reason to be afraid of that happening in the U.S.

Someone should probably split this thread since we're not really talking about Palin anymore.

[Thrash]

Maybe we are all working with different conceptions of what Sharia law is, and what its inception into US law would entail.

I don't think it has to be completely tied up ib religion, much the way some of the Decalogue could be seen as a basis for some US laws, though divorced from it's religious context. Quite honestly, much of what lines up with biblical commandments is just common sense, so why wouldn't there be some sort of overlap?

Though, if there is some sort of shift in what is considered common sense, then there would be changes in laws, I suppose. What would be considered justice would change, and thereby laws would change in order to strive for that horizon.

[TheProdigalModern]

Originally Posted by Thrash

Maybe we are all working with different conceptions of what Sharia law is, and what its inception into US law would entail.

This is the big problem with this debate. "Sharia" is not a monolithic institution, and is subject to its interpreter.

Let's deconstruct it with a Christian fetish: Theonomy. Some conceptions of theonomy wouldn't look all that different from what we already have, except abortion and gay marriage would be outlawed, and Christianity would be the official religion; other conceptions, however, entail alarming stuff like stoning rebellious children, debt slavery, etc. Both may be based on improper understandings of human dominion, but one of those is a lot less scary.

I have said elsewhere that I am OK with Sharia courts in the U.S. if they function as legal arbitration between two parties rather than as the only option for Muslims. They would still have to work within the framework of U.S. law (so no beatings for rebellious wives, etc.), but could be considered legally binding. I'm of the understanding that some Christian ecclesiastical courts are given this consideration already.