Religion of peace update...

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Saint; you are indeed a hoot!

Thanks! I'm glad these topics can be fun and civil at the same time.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Something just doesn't seem right about shedding blood and winning a battle for land and then giving it back. But what do I know--the Israelis are doing it.

I see. So it wasn't genocide, it was Manifest Destiny. Mmhmm, and now it's too late to say we're sorry so why bother? Wouldn't it be strange if another country invaded us to liberate the Native Americans and give them their land back? It sounds funny but looks like that's what we're into these days overseas.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Actually the southern states didn't feel they had enough representation in the government.

Aha! I knew it was politics! Not a bull's-eye, but points nonetheless.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Abolition was the acid thrown in the chlorine that sparked their need for secession. Here's a link that explains this in pretty good detail: www.swcivilwar.com...

Sweet. I'll read it. This discussion makes American History sound somewhat interesting.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
You knew a "crew"? I believe somewhere in your post you used the word "vector". Are you a pilot?

Nope, though some years ago went to a civil aviation school. Coincidently, it was through a similar program that I met that "crew" I mentioned. At the time I wanted to be a Navy Fighter Pilot. Only got 2 of the 3 nominations I needed to go though. I'm not going to say (democrat) what party affiliation (democrat) was the only one to not give me the clinching recommendation (democrat) but I'm not bitter (democrat). Fortunately for me, I don't ascribe to political parties necessarily because I've not heard of one make complete and total sense. I go by individual issue.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
True. Don't gays/lesbians have rights?

Yes. Er...did I somehow imply or represent they shouldn't? I know, it's gotta be the username, right?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
There are many gays/lesbians who are religious.

Hm...okay.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Besides, marriage is not necessarily a religious ceremony.

It isn't? Can someone clarify for me please?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Athiests get married--right?

Yes, but why?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I believe it did. Booze should be legalized.

History backs you up so looks like I'm in the minority...again. Go government taxes on alcohol and tobacco go! Let's pay for socialized medicine so we can attempt to recover from liver and lung failure. Hm, wait. This is getting weird....

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
We have the technology but not the resources. Wind and solar make up only a tiny fraction of our energy resources. Hydro-mechanical (water through a dam) energy makes a lot more. The rest comes from Nuclear and petroleum/coal-burning plants. The notion that electric powered vehicles are pollution-free is a falacy. Electric powered vehicles create pollution at the source where electricity is made.

Hydrogen power is certainly promising but we don't have the resources to produce it without making polution in the process. Iceland, however, is slowly moving toward hydrogen power because they have geo-thermal energy to produce it. In about 15-20 years I believe they will be major exporters of hydrogen.

Thanks for the further info on it, always appreciated. I remember Mr. President saying something about clean cars, I'm just anxious to see it happen. I haven't seen any steps taken yet. Hydrogen? Did we not learn anything from the Hindenburg? Big badaboom on I-95 would be lethal. I'm sure (or at least hope) someone already thought of this, but they should say it in the same breath as the word 'hydrogen'.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Whether or not they are good I believe is a moot argument. I personally like to have the option of doing them and then choosing not to. I don't need the government choosing for me. As long as these activities don't adversely effect the rights of others then they should be legal.

The problem is us people have a hard time realizing that self-destructive things do indeed effect the rights of others. If I took narcotics and as a result lost my job/mind/health, that would have a profound impact on my husband/wife and child(ren). Now my wife/husband and kid(s) have to fend for themselves with a diminished right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Whether or not Islam, as a governing power, is more effective depends on what you're measuring it against.

I think the answer may be more grass-roots than a lot of us may think. As intelligent persons, I think we're able to determine whether a law has a negative or positive impact. For those who cannot, there's always statistics

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
That's why I said Social crimes. Human rights violations is another story

Ah. Well here's the thing though, domestic assault is a crime here but not there (just a human right's violation) so there's not less of it because of their laws, is there? Maybe the criminals don't have time to kill other people or steal when they're too busy beating their spouses and kidnapping people for the government.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Not at all Saint. I value your opinions and respect your positions though I may disagree with some of them. This is what makes this interesting--it would be boring otherwise.

Cool! Glad the feelings are mutual then.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Now--off I go to do some ROP update fishing....

Share with us your catches and we'll weigh'em on the scales

P.S. Next time before mentioning grilled steaks and bevvie's, can ya invite over your ATS friends first?

Originally posted by saint4God
I see. So it wasn't genocide, it was Manifest Destiny. Mmhmm, and now it's too late to say we're sorry so why bother? Wouldn't it be strange if another country invaded us to liberate the Native Americans and give them their land back? It sounds funny but looks like that's what we're into these days overseas.

That would be very strange! What would they liberate native americans from? They live on large reservations and generally abide by there own rules and laws. I don't think Native Americans would appreciate being "liberated" since the majority of them have revenue producing casinos. Here's a tip: If you go to an indian gaming establishment, don't play the slots!! They're programmed very tight and are thus their biggest revenue producer.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
True. Don't gays/lesbians have rights?

Originally posted by saint4God
Yes. Er...did I somehow imply or represent they shouldn't? I know, it's gotta be the username, right?

It's possible I might have misunderstood you. Pg5 is very slow to load to go back and review it so if you didn't mean that gays/lesbians don't have the right to marry--then I retract the question.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Besides, marriage is not necessarily a religious ceremony.

Originally posted by saint4God
It isn't? Can someone clarify for me please?

Couples can have a ship captain marry them. They can go to the justice of the peace etc. Both, as well as others are legitimate ways to marry. The ceremony can either be religious or not.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Athiests get married--right?

Originally posted by saint4God
Yes, but why?

There are many benefits and conveniences afforded married couples that are not afforded cohabitating couples. If a spouse becomes extremely ill or dies his/her wife/husband are automatically given some rights of survivorship and powers of attorney in matters such as finances, medical decisions, and custody. "Domestic partners" don't have these same rights without the required mountain of paperwork and detailed documentation that usually costs alot of money from attorneys fees. Married couples only need a certificate or marriage license.

Originally posted by saint4God
Hydrogen? Did we not learn anything from the Hindenburg? Big badaboom on I-95 would be lethal. I'm sure (or at least hope) someone already thought of this, but they should say it in the same breath as the word 'hydrogen'.

The energy (BTU's) per volume of hydrogen is much less than gasoline. If the Hindenburg had been filled with gasoline vapor its explosion would have been much more spectacular.

Originally posted by saint4God
The problem is us people have a hard time realizing that self-destructive things do indeed effect the rights of others. If I took narcotics and as a result lost my job/mind/health, that would have a profound impact on my husband/wife and child(ren). Now my wife/husband and kid(s) have to fend for themselves with a diminished right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

Interesting take Saint. The thing is the husband/wife has the freedom to leave. More importantly, the narcotics user could be forced to leave. Sort of an actions/consequenses thing. In any case, having laws against narcotics hasn't stopped people from using them. They are widely available. Should they all be legal? Probably not. But I believe including marijuana in that list is hypocritical since studies that I've read show alcohol to be much worse when it's abused.



[edit on 19-3-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

Hey Freedom
You didn't really answer my original question. Sure, there are places where people can be completely nude, but should people be allowed to be completely nude wherever they want? Why can't they be completely nude walking down the street, and coming to get their kids from school? What should be the limit, then?

I stand by what I said about things like cigarettes and alcohol. Smoking and drinking have absolutely no use for health, nutrition, etc. They don't need to be done in excess to damage. A guy could smoke 1 cigarette every 2 days, and still die of lung cancer/emphasyma(don't know the spelling) because of it.

Also, I'd be interested to know where you get your Quran translations from, Freedom, 4:36 reads like this to me from the Yusuf Ali translations:

4:36
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Originally posted by babloyi
Hey Freedom
You didn't really answer my original question. Sure, there are places where people can be completely nude, but should people be allowed to be completely nude wherever they want? Why can't they be completely nude walking down the street, and coming to get their kids from school? What should be the limit, then?

I thought I did answer but perhaps not to your satisfaction. This is a common sense issue that requires no specific laws prohibiting public nudity. No specific laws are needed because society, in general, accpets the standard that we are not going to be walking around nude in view of the public. We do have blanket "decency" laws that can apply to all sorts of behavior besides nudity.

Now that said, I would like to return to the original reason this issue came up: Imposing "modest" attire on women to "prevent" rapes. This assumes the notion that the reason women gat raped is because of their appearance. This is absolutely wrong!!

Saint4God said in a previous post that this is OK because the Malaysian government represents its people. I submit that only part of the Malaysian Gov't represents its people. You only have TRUE freedom when the government is controlled by the public through the power of voting. The Malaysian Gov't has two "houses": Higher and lower. The higher house I believe is the equivalent our senate/cabinet members and extends up to their royal ruling. These are members who are appointed, not elected. The lower house is made up of the equivalent state governors/representatives. These are elected members. Now I don't claim to be an expert on the make up of the Malaysian political system; but one thing I do know is that when you have a government who's made up mostly by appointees, the public has little or no voice in the laws foisted upon them by their government.

I would be interested to know malaysian women's reaction to this "modest" dress requirement.

Originally posted by babloyi
I stand by what I said about things like cigarettes and alcohol. Smoking and drinking have absolutely no use for health, nutrition, etc. They don't need to be done in excess to damage. A guy could smoke 1 cigarette every 2 days, and still die of lung cancer/emphasyma(don't know the spelling) because of it.

Fair enough babloyi, you made your point. I still stand by my assertion that I would rather make the choice for myself rather than have the government do it for me. BTW: I know of 90 year-olds who smoked their entire lives and I know of non-smokers who have died of lung cancer. Also, medical studies have shown that moderate amounts of alcohol (beer/wine) does have health benefits. ( I did a quick google search and came up with this website): dallas.bizjournals.com...

Originally posted by babloyi
Also, I'd be interested to know where you get your Quran translations from, Freedom, 4:36 reads like this to me from the Yusuf Ali translations:
4:36
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

I used the Pikthal translation. What can I say babloyi? You provided a translation that says it's OK to beat women. Lightly? What does that mean exactly? So as not to leave a bruise? I can't imagine ever asserting myself physically against my wife. If my wife did something so horific that would make me want to beat her, I would divorce her before ever beating her. I have extreme difficulty understanding any culture giving license to beat someone you are supposed to love.

I'm not sure what point you are to make by posting the Yusuf Ali translation. Are you trying to show that men are "protectors" of women; not "in charge" of them? If this is true, how is it that men are given license to beat them? Is there ever a time that a woman can beat her husband? Who protects the women from their husbands?!?

Clearly, the Yusuf ali translation you provided, as well as the two additional translations I copied below all basically say the same thing: Muslim women are subservient to their men and if they get out of line then you can beat them (albeit, as a last resort). Here are the two other translations: Shakir and Khalifa

SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

KHALIFA: The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.

Editted for speeling
[edit on 20-3-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

[edit on 20-3-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
That would be very strange! What would they liberate native americans from?

Being imprisoned on reservations. The ones who farm, are they really in ideal climates to do so? They're given patches of sand and are told, "grow something why don't you?". The Cherokee Exodus comes to mind. Some tribes are hunter-gatherers. Do they have the space to search the reservation for game and food? If they do, how long does it last until it's depleted?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
They live on large reservations and generally abide by there own rules and laws. I don't think Native Americans would appreciate being "liberated" since the majority of them have revenue producing casinos.

How noble. Working for a drinking and adult entertainment establishment. Why not just put them in cages and teach them to do tricks for the general public? Native Americans didn't settle these lands in search for enterprise. That's not THEIR American dream. That's ours, remember?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Here's a tip: If you go to an indian gaming establishment, don't play the slots!! They're programmed very tight and are thus their biggest revenue producer.

I'll keep that in mind if ever I'm driving by one.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
There are many benefits and conveniences afforded married couples that are not afforded cohabitating couples. If a spouse becomes extremely ill or dies his/her wife/husband are automatically given some rights of survivorship and powers of attorney in matters such as finances, medical decisions, and custody. "Domestic partners" don't have these same rights without the required mountain of paperwork and detailed documentation that usually costs alot of money from attorneys fees. Married couples only need a certificate or marriage license.

Ah. After looking at the dictionary, it looks like I have a different definition of marriage. Again in the minority, your patience is much appreciated. Here I thought it was the joining of a man and a woman making promises to each other in the sight of God.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
The energy (BTU's) per volume of hydrogen is much less than gasoline. If the Hindenburg had been filled with gasoline vapor its explosion would have been much more spectacular.

Phew! I was hoping it was well thought out. Thanks for the education. I read up on it, but looks like what I did was lacking this detail.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by saint4God
The problem is us people have a hard time realizing that self-destructive things do indeed effect the rights of others. If I took narcotics and as a result lost my job/mind/health, that would have a profound impact on my husband/wife and child(ren). Now my wife/husband and kid(s) have to fend for themselves with a diminished right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Interesting take Saint. The thing is the husband/wife has the freedom to leave.

And in these relationships that solves....what exactly?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
More importantly, the narcotics user could be forced to leave. Sort of an actions/consequenses thing. In any case, having laws against narcotics hasn't stopped people from using them. They are widely available. Should they all be legal? Probably not. But I believe including marijuana in that list is hypocritical since studies that I've read show alcohol to be much worse when it's abused.

*shrug* Another convincing argument for me to not have much alcohol. I get dizzy and sick from the flu, I don't need to self-induce it.

Originally posted by babloyi
As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly)

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
SHAKIR: ...(as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them;...

KHALIFA: ...If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them....

To me there's only one way to read these passages.

Question: How do you beat someone lightly? I mean, I take Kung-Fu (Wushu) but when we start beating on each other, it shows up at least the next morning. Also, there's a crazed look in sparring sometimes that tells me to back away and try to calm them (and it's considered 'light-contact'). Adrenaline though useful in survival, can be an ugly thing otherwise.

I think you have a convincing argument here Freedom that Islam is not a religion of peace in the household. I doubt you'd use force to win a disagreement Babloyi, but the license to do so it very unsettling to me. Also, disciplining children is now coming to mind....

[edit on 21-3-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
That would be very strange! What would they liberate native americans from?

Originally posted by saint4God
Being imprisoned on reservations. The ones who farm, are they really in ideal climates to do so? They're given patches of sand and are told, "grow something why don't you?". The Cherokee Exodus comes to mind. Some tribes are hunter-gatherers. Do they have the space to search the reservation for game and food? If they do, how long does it last until it's depleted?

You make it sound like they aren't allowed to leave their land and that the only infrastructure they have are crops and buffalo. This is not true! They have the option of getting jobs beyond reservations and are given affirmative action status when competing for jobs. In addition, they do have job-supporting infrastructures. I will give you, however, that many do suffer from alcoholism and diabetes mostly as a result of our government's policy of welfare and handouts for many years (reparitions). I see your concern for native Americans and that is indeed noble!

Originally posted by saint4God
Ah. After looking at the dictionary, it looks like I have a different definition of marriage. Again in the minority, your patience is much appreciated. Here I thought it was the joining of a man and a woman making promises to each other in the sight of God.

Nah--I don't believe you're in the minority. Dictionary.com includes the definition as a "joining of a man and woman", among other definitions.

I'd like to ask you a question. I will presume that you're a man for the sake of this question (so if you're a woman please don't be insulted!). When you started dating did you have the same attraction for men (same sex) as you did for women; and then make a conscious (sp) choice to date only women (opposite sex)? Or was it natural for you to only be attracted to the opposite sex?

Originally posted by saint4God
And in these relationships that solves....what exactly?

Well, for one thing it gets the narcotics abuser out of the family situation so they can start to heal. But you've made some very good points on this subject Saint. It's a very difficult subject simply because this generally isn't a black/white situation--there are many variables.

Editted to remove the following question (I see you responded Saint):
I'm curious: Do you have an opinion on the last exchange between babloyi and me?

[edit on 21-3-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
You make it sound like they aren't allowed to leave their land and that the only infrastructure they have are crops and buffalo. This is not true! They have the option of getting jobs beyond reservations and are given affirmative action status when competing for jobs. In addition, they do have job-supporting infrastructures.

It's true if they wish to assimilate our European life-style they can. Props to the gov. for at least giving that option these days (though the past is another story entirely).

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I will give you, however, that many do suffer from alcoholism and diabetes mostly as a result of our government's policy of welfare and handouts for many years (reparitions). I see your concern for native Americans and that is indeed noble!

Thanks. I only have a very slight decendency from Native Americans (a whole lot less than Euro) but I believe people are capable of looking objectively at a situation and knowing how to do the right thing.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I'd like to ask you a question. I will presume that you're a man for the sake of this question (so if you're a woman please don't be insulted!).

No worries. I approach all topics as gender non-specific for 2 reasons. One, it allows me to try to see things objectively. Two (more importantly), I don't believe morality should be a 'gender-specific' issue.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
When you started dating did you have the same attraction for men (same sex) as you did for women; and then make a conscious (sp) choice to date only women (opposite sex)? Or was it natural for you to only be attracted to the opposite sex?

I'll play along. The expected and actual answer for me is: 'natural'. However! There are a lot of other things that are 'natural' that I needed to kick out as bad habits. Christians point back to the original sin tendencies here.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Well, for one thing it gets the narcotics abuser out of the family situation so they can start to heal. But you've made some very good points on this subject Saint. It's a very difficult subject simply because this generally isn't a black/white situation--there are many variables.

True it's not black/white. I just feel people are way too quick to pull the trigger on divorce and get into situations before fully considering the consequences of their actions. Some never even see the consequences at all until bad stuff happens.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Editted to remove the following question (I see you responded Saint):
I'm curious: Do you have an opinion on the last exchange between babloyi and me?

My current opinion based on the information posted on this thread is that the Quran does license domestic abuse in extreme circumstance. The problem I have with this is the subjectivity of what 'extreme' is and 'light beating' is. Nobody can get their own lexicon right so by who's definitions are we to determine these things? God helps us out, yes, but sometimes we want to take control especially in anger. When we do, that's when we break our connection and sin.


[edit on 21-3-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
When you started dating did you have the same attraction for men (same sex) as you did for women; and then make a conscious (sp) choice to date only women (opposite sex)? Or was it natural for you to only be attracted to the opposite sex?

Originally posted by saint4God
I'll play along. The expected and actual answer for me is: 'natural'. However! There are a lot of other things that are 'natural' that I needed to kick out as bad habits. Christians point back to the original sin tendencies here.

OK. Please follow along on my logic: If it was "natural" for you, and for me and mostly everyone else; why is it so difficult for people to accept that it's natural for gays/lesbians? (I'm not talking about circumstances surrounding abuse. Most gays/lesbians came from healthy upbringings).

Given that it is natural why are gays/lesbians expected to somehow stifle their feelings? I believe you made a comparison by commenting on other natural things that you needed to "kick out" as bad habits. How can love be considered a bad habit? Love is a fundamental thing that makes us human and there are different types: Paternal, Maternal, love we have for our kids, and romantic love.

The President wants to ammend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Why? I've heard the political buzz expression "to protect the sanctity of marriage" bantered about. What does this mean? This expression presumes that other people's personal relationships somehow affect the quality of my marriage which certainly isn't the case.

This kinda goes along with previous posts in that this is a good example where the actions of gays/lesbians doesn't adversely effect or otherwise negatively impact the civil liberties/rights of others.

As you can probably guess I have more to say about this issue but I am interested to read your opinion thus far. BTW: I'm not presuming that you would make the arguments I wrote here (sanctity of marriage; etc); these are just a few that I've heard people use elsewhere.

Getting back to Islam for just a moment--and believe it or not, not to critique! I've spent some time in UAE and Turkey. I don't remember noticing this in Turkey; but in UAE it was very common for men to walk hand in hand. I'm not implying that they were gay (there were alot of them) but it was a cultural difference that certainly got my attention.

4:35-36
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
If ye fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation: For Allah hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things.

Islam prohibits men from hitting women, except in one very limited case when the wife is rebellious and disobedient - not when she disobeys one request or order - and only as a last resort. The husband should first admonish her, then abandon her bed if she continues to be rebellious, and only if those steps have failed “may be” hit, not beat, her. The earliest commentators understood from hadith that the hitting was to be light enough, not to leave a mark and should be done with nothing bigger than a miswak (tooth stick), and never to be done on the face.
It did not saying not leaving a bruise, they said not leaving even a mark. No "red flash" on the skin even. You can understand how light that is. It is not meant to be taken as physical abuse.
By righteous women being devoutly obedient, it is not saying be obedient to your husband, it means to be devoutly obedient to God! You are not allowed to be devout to any except God.

30:21
And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
OK. Please follow along on my logic: If it was "natural" for you, and for me and mostly everyone else; why is it so difficult for people to accept that it's natural for gays/lesbians? (I'm not talking about circumstances surrounding abuse. Most gays/lesbians came from healthy upbringings).

This is similar to asking me if I like living in Armenia. I don't know. I've never lived there. I can only talk to people who have.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Given that it is natural why are gays/lesbians expected to somehow stifle their feelings?

Married heterosexual people need to stifle their feelings. Guys have the 'wandering eye' syndrome and gals have the 'lonely housewife/business woman' syndrome. Even if s/he says "not tonight dear", that's to be respected. Marriage should be about putting your spouse's feelings first. I do not know the condition of those who are gay/lesbian. None have talked at great length to me about it yet, but I have a feeling they know deep down what's right and wrong so it's a conversation they'd have to have with God and report their findings after an open-hearted, analytical approach. I know what's written but I've heard arguments on both sides. I don't think it's for me to know at this time. For me this is between that person and God.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I believe you made a comparison by commenting on other natural things that you needed to "kick out" as bad habits. How can love be considered a bad habit?

Love? or Lust? Can you love someone without lusting them? Can you love someone without lusting them?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Love is a fundamental thing that makes us human and there are different types: Paternal, Maternal, love we have for our kids, and romantic love.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
The President wants to ammend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Why? I've heard the political buzz expression "to protect the sanctity of marriage" bantered about. What does this mean? This expression presumes that other people's personal relationships somehow affect the quality of my marriage which certainly isn't the case.

I'm more concerned about people getting married without God present. It was a very sacred day for me, making that promise before God so I do get offended with the "your married, so what?" attitude to both me and my espoused. People think they can 'get game' on us even though we're committed to each other . Same goes with sex. Some people throw themselves on a mattress at the drop of a hat, but for me it's a very special union. Another slap in the face of true love. These I CAN account for as violations of sanctity, not that a lot of people can look past themselves nor care anyway.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
This kinda goes along with previous posts in that this is a good example where the actions of gays/lesbians doesn't adversely effect or otherwise negatively impact the civil liberties/rights of others.

I'm opposed to marriage as a non-God contract signing. Otherwise call it something else. Call it a 'civil union' or 'partnership acquisition' with the same legal rights, I don't care. That way it doesn't sound just plain stupid to get a 'divorce' over 'irreconcilable differences'.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
As you can probably guess I have more to say about this issue but I am interested to read your opinion thus far. BTW: I'm not presuming that you would make the arguments I wrote here (sanctity of marriage; etc); these are just a few that I've heard people use elsewhere.

Sure, fire away. I like to think.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Getting back to Islam for just a moment--and believe it or not, not to critique! I've spent some time in UAE and Turkey. I don't remember noticing this in Turkey; but in UAE it was very common for men to walk hand in hand. I'm not implying that they were gay (there were alot of them) but it was a cultural difference that certainly got my attention.

In some of southern Euro countries, men kiss men and women kiss women as a greeting. If there aren't sexual feelings with this then how can it be considered homosexual? Sounds like ignorance to me.


[edit on 22-3-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by babloyi
then abandon her bed if she continues to be rebellious.

The term "giving him/her the cold shoulder" comes from back in the day when a 'guest' would show up at someone's house unwelcomed. The host would give them the cold shoulder of meat, implying "we don't want you here so have the cold piece of meat and we'll eat the warm, delicious part".

With that history lesson in mind, how would you feel if you were given the cold shoulder? Would that prompt you to return to that person's house? Would you not resent that person pulling away from you like this? Personally if someone seeks vengence in a power game or in any way made me feel unwelcomed, I would want to leave.

I believe people should be mature when married. When there is a dispute, the last thing a couple needs is separation. Calmness, patience, and communication is what gets a couple through a difficult time. Christian or not, I'd have a fundamental human psychological problem with giving anyone the 'cold shoulder'. What kind of love is in that?


[edit on 22-3-2005 by saint4God]

Well, after about a week's hiatus (vacation) to the big apple I am back. Our hotel was next to the "Islam in Motion" convention which was hosted by the MSA-NY (Muslim Student Association). Had we the time it would have been interesting to go in and see what they were there to do. We did notice, however, that after the convention a young woman was wearing a shirt which stated the following: My name causes an NSA alert. What does yours do?

This, we thought, was poignant since my name, which is about as common as "Smith" or "Jones", was placed on a security "watch" list that required us to jump through inconvenient electronic hoops before we were allowed to travel. The reason for this was because some Muslim degenerate decided to try to use my name for some illegal, fraudulent, or perhaps deadly act.

And as we stood in awe at ground zero, we were reminded that of the animals who commited that atrocity, none were named Smith, Jones, or anything remotely Western. This thought, of course, is completely lost on that young woman as it was clear her agenda was to proclaim her victim-hood in the post 911 world.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
We did notice, however, that after the convention a young woman was wearing a shirt which stated the following: My name causes an NSA alert. What does yours do?

that the reason why she wore that shirt is because she never sat down and had lunch with you. I'm thinking the reason why you had frustrations with her is because you never sat down and had lunch with her. Are you seeing where I'm going with this? We can make all the generalizations we want about any group of people, but unless we get to know each and every one of them, the generalization will never be true. Maybe the four of us (you, t-shirt girl, me, and Babloyi) can have lunch sometime and talk about all the garbage this world puts us through. May I suggest a barbeque?

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm thinking...that the reason she wore that shirt is because she never sat down and had lunch with you. I'm thinking the reason why you had frustrations with her is because you never sat down and had lunch with her. Are you seeing where I'm going with this? We can make all the generalizations we want about any group of people, but unless we get to know each and every one of them, the generalization will never be true. Maybe the four of us (you, t-shirt girl, me, and Babloyi) can have lunch sometime and talk about all the garbage this world puts us through. May I suggest a barbeque?

Having healthy one-on-one discussions is a good idea--on an individual level. The problem is that the paradigms of Islam are so deep-seated and systemic that these micro-discussions do nothing to address, on a grander scale, the culture clash that exists.

Any healthy discussion would HAVE to include critical introspection on the part of Muslims. But since their's is the "one true religion" and that ANY discussion critical of Islam is blasphemy, I think you would be hard-pressed to find any devout Muslim willing to join you/me in a critical discussion of Islam. It seems that even babloyi has resigned from this discussion on a couple occasions when [he] is losing the "hearts and minds" argument for Islam.

CAIR (Council on American-islamic Relations) has promoted itself as the pseudo channel of dialouges between Muslims and others. But rather than engaging in a healthy forum they instead call those critical of Islam "Islamophobes" and use the legal system to otherwise silence its critics. The reason for this is fundamental: When one reads the texts of the Pillars of Islam and the Qur'an the "moderates" foundation of a peaceful and tolerant religion crumbles beneath their feet. So it is much easier to confront and fight the "Islamophobes" than it is to win their hearts and minds.

It is also easier for that "t-shirt" girl to play the "victim" card than it is to discuss why she was there.

BTW: Their motto for this convention is: "Building momentum for a Mainstream Culture" What ever that means. Maybe some light can be shed from their program notes:

"Every generation, in every place, of every time, faces challenges when it
comes to embracing and practicing the Deen. We live in a time where lewdness has become iconic and vulgarity has gained momentum. And yet, from the guidance of Quran and Sunnah we know that Islam is what needs to be put on a pedestal."

Somewhat similar to what Omar Ahmad (co-founder of CAIR) said to an audience in San Diego a few years ago:

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

[edit on 30-3-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

Freedom_for_sum, it is impossible to have a discussion with you.
Your main points HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED in this thread.
You see Muslims as some kind of Borg collective (have you watched star trek, do you know who borg are? if not, a short explanation: borg are beings without their own identity, they are a part of a collective and function only as collective, have no individual thought, no differences between them and they have one Borg Queen who tells them what to do, she orders they all follow).

Muslims are 1,2 billion people living in over 100 countries, with different culture, language, skin color, mentality, laws, social culture, economic and political system, different stages of development.

CAIR has zero authority in Europe, zero authority in asia, muslims in bosnia couldn't care less what some imam in Saudi Arabia says, he has ZERO authority outside Saudi Arabia. There is no muslim "pope", such person doesn't exist.
Hell, I can bet most muslims in USA do not care about CAIR.

You give example of ONE SINGLE PERSON saying something, and then you somehow apply it to billion people who have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a person who made the statement in question.

That would be like saying all people in Poland must stop with their everyday lives and devote themselves to speaking on TV, condemning what Timothy McVeigh has done. After all, he was white christian who went to church and polish people are white christians who go to church. There must be some connection, so we want to see them all every single day on TV for years and years to come justifying their existance and their faith because of McVeigh.
Also we will profile every single one of them who want to travel around, after all, they might have that "terrorist" mentality.

Such line of thinking is so utterly absurd that I do not know what else to say.

You view Muslims as collective in which all are somehow responsible for deeds of a few and have to justify themselves over and over again every time a member of "collective" does something wrong.
It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who twist and turns everything to fit this "collective" ideology.

You might wanna re-evaluate the very basic premise of your discussion and then maybe start again, once you can define what exactly you want to discuss.

Actually Paperclip, I feel I've substantiated everything I've said here by providing references that support my position. Maybe instead of doing a "hit and run" post you could list your references here that you believe support your claims--especially since you live on a continent that's gradually becoming Eurabia.

I asked in a previous post for anyone who can show, WITH references, the loving, peaceful, and tolerant nature of Islam (besides for other Muslims) to post it/them here so it/they can be discussed. I've yet to see any.

And on that note; here's another ROP update:

Finally! CAIR loses one.

www.charlotte.com...

Judge kills suit against ex-Rep. Ballenger

WASHINGTON - A federal judge has dismissed a $2 million lawsuit filed against former Rep. Cass Ballenger by an American Muslim civil rights group for linking it to terrorists during an October 2003 interview with The Charlotte Observer.
In a seven-page decision released Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon agreed with the Hickory Republican's argument that he made the comments "in the scope of his employment as a federal employee" and that the suit should be converted into one against the U.S. government.

And because a doctrine called sovereign immunity bars most suits against the federal government, Leon threw out the case.

In the newspaper interview, Ballenger blamed the breakup of his 50-year marriage partly on the stress of living near the group's Capitol Hill headquarters, which was so close to the Capitol that he and his wife worried "they could blow the place up."

He also called the Council on American-Islamic Relations "the fundraising arm for Hezbollah."

In its lawsuit, CAIR said that these and other comments by Ballenger damaged its reputation and good name.

Yeah--its reputation, of course, of having ties to terrorist groups and publicly proclaiming that Islam ought to be the "dominant" religion in the US; which, of course, will NEVER happen

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I asked in a previous post for anyone who can show, WITH references, the loving, peaceful, and tolerant nature of Islam (besides for other Muslims) to post it/them here so it/they can be discussed. I've yet to see any

It is rather unfair to say that, considering I have been posting such material since the beginning of this thread. However, I am always willing to take up such a challenge. Here you go, this is all from the Quran, superceding anything the head of CAIR, Pakistanis, Iranis, Saudis say or do:

Islam is loving:

2:83
And remember We took a covenant from the Children of Israel (to this effect): Worship none but Allah. treat with kindness your parents and kindred, and orphans and those in need; speak fair to the people; be steadfast in prayer; and practise regular charity. Then did ye turn back, except a few among you, and ye backslide (even now).
And remember We took your covenant (to this effect): Shed no blood amongst you, nor turn out your own people from your homes: and this ye solemnly ratified, and to this ye can bear witness.

16:90
God advocates justice, charity, and regarding the relatives. And He forbids evil, vice, and transgression. He enlightens you, that you may take heed.

Islam is peaceful. You can't force someone to accept Islam through violence:

16:125
Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.

2:190
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

31:15
But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of those who turn to me (in love): in the end the return of you all is to Me, and I will tell you the truth (and meaning) of all that ye did.

ALL that I quoted applies to a Muslim's behaviour to EVERYONE, not just other muslims. I doubt this will have any effect on you, but hey, I am ever-hopeful.

[edit on 1-4-2005 by babloyi]

Babloyi;

I started out by quoting/commenting each sura you posted but decided, instead, to make a general response:

It seems to me that thoses verses specifically apply to Muslims. Words/expressions such as: Worship none but Allah; treat with kindness your parents and kindred; Shed no blood amongst you, nor turn out your own people from your homes; etc. makes it seems obvious that these are written by and for Muslims.

And let's not forget the Qur'an in its entirety where it makes many references about "believers" vs "non-believers" AKA "Idolators", Jews, Christians; and how it's against Islam to befreind them---I could go on but I'm not going to because how you and I read and understand the Qur'an is clearly very different.

When I posted my "challenge" I was refering to "real world" current events and examples where it can be said that Muslim(s) did something that benefitted non-muslims and would show the practice of a peaceful, loving and tolerant islam.

Can you post something like that here babloyi?

Freedom, you are grasping at straws now. It is very obvious that those verses specifically applies to EVERYONE. You may not have wished to comment on each verse to show how they are for muslims to muslims(instead you use a blanket statement to disregard all of them), but I will comment to show that they are not:

The 1st one(2:83-84) was originally a covenant to the Children of Israel. That automatically shows that it is not only for muslims. It even mentions that there are a few who did not turn back (from the path of God).

The 2nd (16:90) tells what God advocates. It does not say "Only to other muslims" anywhere in the passage.

The 3rd one (16:125) is very obviously referring to muslim behaviour towards non-muslims. Who else but non-muslims can be invited to "The Way of God"?

The 5th one (31:15) talks about people who "strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge" (obviously referring to non-muslims).

You ask for real world events. The very existence of such groups of Coptic Christians, Jewish Egyptians, Christians in Ethopia, Nigeria, etc, all of who have have lived peacefully for over a 1000 years in areas that have been ruled by muslims for over a 1000 years. Don't you think that if Islam advocated their deaths, they would have ceased to exist by now? They all are still around, still in those exact places their families have been for generations.

[edit on 4-4-2005 by babloyi]

[edit on 4-4-2005 by babloyi]