It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Interview with Syed B. Soharwardy by Peter J. Sanford

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Odium;

I'd like to remind you something you stated in a previous post:


Originally posted by Odium
The United Kingdom is a Christian Nation, we have a State based Religion however I am not forced to do anything such as prayer, go to Church and accept their norms and values - I am just treated as a deviant if I do not.

In the United State's it is very similar - what days do people have off of School? Christmas, Easter, etc this is not the action of a State without a Religion. This is the action of a State with a Religion.

If you look at things like School Holidays, traditional christian values and compare them with the laws of this Nation - they are primarily Christian. Take for example the gay marriage debate.

Like it or not, it is a Nation that grants Christians privilages over those who are not and this is not inline with what the Nation was setup on but was hijacked just like Islam has been, Christianity has been and many other things.


These are problems, as you correctly point out, of a government sanctionaing a specific religion. There are many ways this can happen; not the least of which is when a governmental organization (UHP in this case) sanctions by recognizing or using a religious symbol (the cross) for any purpose.

As far as Las Cruces is concerned, I would be interested to know the history of how that city was named and the symbols used. It could be a violation.

In any case, the reason we are having this discussion is because the man you interviewed made several erronious claims; one of which was that it is the atheists who are forcing their beliefs upon others. If this is the case, how can your statement you made in the post above be true? Odium, you addmitted a degree of oppression you feel due to religion; specifically, Christianity. You also stated that America is similar to England in this regard. If this is all true; how can what Sayed said about secularists and atheists be true? How can Sayed make this claim; yet at the same time say that our government should provide religious facilites for prayer? Who is forcing whose beliefs upon others? If my tax dollars are being used to pay for these facilities; isn't that imposing religion on me?




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Freedom_For_Sum, sorry about the lateness of response - however, I have been rather busy with external issues [aside from the internet]. But, I will now get back to you on this post.

I’ll take it issue by issue, just to simply it for all of those concerned.

It is possible for both groups in a situation to attempt to oppress another group. Thus, it is both possible for Religious groups to force their view and for Non-Religious groups to force their view. This is what is happening on the majority of issues. Religious groups desire their moral laws to be imposed upon everyone and Non-Religious groups want symbols to be removed due to pointless reasons.

Take for example the issue he raised. If there are Muslim people in the United State’s, who pay tax they can have the right for some of that to go into the education system so they can pray. Christians can do the same. Non-Religious people can ask for it to go to other areas. By such a place existing in school it does not mean the State is sponsoring it. They have such places in Schools in the United Kingdom, does that make us a Muslim nation? No it doesn’t. The same goes for symbols like crosses, or the ten commandments. I am not forced to be religious due to them being in a building . People do not force you to pray, they do not force you to go into the room.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Freedom_For_Sum, sorry about the lateness of response - however, I have been rather busy with external issues [aside from the internet]. But, I will now get back to you on this post.


No worries. What happens in 6 months anyways? Let's see: for me; I quit smoking and lost about 120 pounds of angry nagging flesh (through a divorce



Originally posted by Odium
It is possible for both groups in a situation to attempt to oppress another group.


I submit that it's mostly people of religion who attempt to oppress other groups; religious and non-religious. Agnostics and Athiest are mostly "live and let live" kind of people.


Originally posted by Odium
Non-Religious groups want symbols to be removed due to pointless reasons.


Uh; the reasons aren't pointless. In fact they're very to the point. Our Constitution prevents our government from sactioning any religion. Unless they have historical or art value, religious symbols have no place in tax-payer funded buildings or government establishments.


Originally posted by Odium
Take for example the issue he raised. If there are Muslim people in the United State’s, who pay tax they can have the right for some of that to go into the education system so they can pray.


That is incorrect. They are paying taxes for public education; not religion. As a taxpayer, I have the right to send my kids to school without them being exposed to dangerous and polarizing religious ideologies (Christian, Islam, or otherwise). They have their churches, temples, mosques, private schools, homes, friends and neighbors. Why must they be allowed to foist their beliefs in a tax-payer-funded venue? If I wanted my kids to be exposed to religion, I would take them to church, temple, or what ever. But I want my kids to receive an education without the distraction of religion in their school.

In any case; you continue to evade the point I made in the last paragraph of my last post. So I will post it again:

How can what Sayed said about secularists and atheists be true (that they are imposing their beliefs on others)? How can Sayed make this claim; yet at the same time say that our government should provide religious facilites for prayer? Who is forcing whose beliefs upon others? If my tax dollars are being used to pay for these facilities; isn't that imposing religion on me?


My point in all these posts in the last several months is that the man you interviewed made a lot of claims that simply don't make sense. And if something doesn't make sense it's usually untrue. In fact I know he made several of false statments. He also made a lot of feel-good statements convenient for feeding anti-American ideolouges (anti-American seems to be in vogue these days).

You should do the honorable thing and post a message here denouncing Syed B. Soharwardy as nothing more than an anti-American pro islamo-fascist and apologize for your part in spreading his filthy ideologic hate-speak.

Freedom_for_sum



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Freedom_For_Sum, sorry to hear about your divorce [or maybe happy]. Who knows that if it is for the best or not? Wish the best of luck with your future and it’s only been three months, I’d worry if you’re married already.



They have their churches, temples, mosques, private schools, homes, friends and neighbors. Why must they be allowed to foist their beliefs in a tax-payer-funded venue?


They pay tax, we accept this right? How hard is it, for a class room to be used during the lunch period for prayers? How does it force Religion onto anyone?

Muslim’s make up such a tiny minority of the United State’s education system, that a single class room would be fine. When they pray nobody who is a non-Muslim is forced to go into the room. Let alone does it alter the room in anyway, it is actually what they do in the United Kingdom. Once they’re doing using the room for prayer people can use it for teaching - however, during the lunch break there are always multiple rooms free for people to use. They need no supervision and it would help to bridge a lot of caps between Muslims and Non-Muslims. I see no reason as to why the constitution would not allow this, they could if they want allow every religion to do the same thing, Jew, Christian, Muslim, et al. People who desire not to be involved never would see it.

It’s a case of balancing each individuals rights. It is not fair for one group [Non-Religious Groups] to be able to do things which directly cause problems for another group [Religious Groups]. I went to School where there were rooms for Jews, Christians and Muslims to go to. They also had rooms for various other things - it never caused any problems, nobody by mistake stumbled into the prayer room, nobody was converted because other people were praying and it was in no way this Government state sponsoring a Religion. The fact we’re a Christian Country and can still do this for Non-Christians says something.

They pay tax, for Public Education and the building which it is taught in. You have to balance the rights of everyone, Religious, Non-Religious and those who are a bit confused about which Religion they believe in.

I never was converted to Judaism because they had someone to go to and had Kosher food on the menu at the School. In fact, should Kosher food also be removed then? Maybe they should not be able to eat in a Public Building? What about office blocks, maybe people should not be allowed to wear a cross? It might force others to convert?



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join