30 Nov 06
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738024/posts
Did everyone hear that the first Islamic Congressman has been elected and has demanded to swear an oath on the Quran instead of the Bible?
Two questions arise in my mind. After talking to many Muslims on RHP it was my assumption that a true Muslim should not participate in a secular government. Every aspect of the life of a true Muslim should revolve around Islam including how one governs. The second question is how could he be in favor of abortion? I thought both Christians and Muslims agreed that abortion for the most part is detestable? Do these facts make him an apostate or merely a moderate Muslim or both? Should a true Muslim participate in a political system that most Muslims around the world refer to as "The Great Satan"?
30 Nov 06
Originally posted by whodeyGood! As an atheist I resent members of Congress being forced to swear an oath on the Christian religious book.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738024/posts
Did everyone hear that the first Islamic Congressman has been elected and has demanded to swear an oath on the Quran instead of the Bible?
Two questions arise in my mind. After talking to many Muslims on RHP it was my assumption that a true Muslim should not participate in a secular government. ...[text shortened]... cipate in a political system that most Muslims around the world refer to as "The Great Satan"?
01 Dec 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThey don't have to; the Constitution states that they can simply "affirm" and that means no holy book at all.
Good! As an atheist I resent members of Congress being forced to swear an oath on the Christian religious book.
Whodey continues to be hilarious; no, not all Christians and Muslims agree that abortion is "detestable". Stop projecting your own views on every religious person.
01 Dec 06
Originally posted by whodeyNot all Christians disagree with abortion (or it wouldn't be legal in so many countries with a Christian majority.) And not everyone who thinks that abortion should be legal thinks that it is not detestable. I personally don't think abortion is a good thing but making it illegal will not stop it taking place but rather endanger the life of the mothers.
Two questions arise in my mind. After talking to many Muslims on RHP it was my assumption that a true Muslim should not participate in a secular government. Every aspect of the life of a true Muslim should revolve around Islam including how one governs. The second question is how could he be in favor of abortion? I thought both Christians and Muslims agre ...[text shortened]... cipate in a political system that most Muslims around the world refer to as "The Great Satan"?
You also didn't address the issue of swearing on the Bible being and extremely un-Christian thing to do.
I doubt that most Muslims refer to the US political system as "The Great Satan". I will try to ask some of my muslim friends next time I see them.
Most of them dont like Bush nor support the war in Iraq, but neither do I and neither do a large number of americans.
01 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyHi Whodey here I'm 🙂
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738024/posts
Did everyone hear that the first Islamic Congressman has been elected and has demanded to swear an oath on the Quran instead of the Bible?
Two questions arise in my mind. After talking to many Muslims on RHP it was my assumption that a true Muslim should not participate in a secular government. ...[text shortened]... cipate in a political system that most Muslims around the world refer to as "The Great Satan"?
How many muslims live in USA? I think they are millions.
Many of them are born in USA, and it is considered their country, they have no other country to know. And as in the current political system in the world, there is no Islamic country that may be considered home for every Muslim. They have no other option to accept the fact that they should live in USA and try to adopt the system to their Islamic rules. May be they are not able to establish their own governing system, but at least they need a representative to express their need.
Muslim should not participate in a secular government.
Your statment is not accurate. Islam is not only covering the spritual side of human life. Islam deals also with dialy human life needs , so it has a political system. It is part of Islam. So there should be a government that deals with secular aspects of humand life. Yes it must follow the Islamic rules, but what If a muslim has to live in a country where he will be withen the minority.
If he has no other option to go to another place, then he has to co-op with the system in a way that doesn't contradict with Islamic rule. There is a regulation in the Islamic law for that. So they will still withen Islamic regulation for their compulsion situation.
The second question is how could he be in favor of abortion?
As you know the democratic system doesn't insure meeting everyone's opinions, but it insure the majority opinion is met. So if the majority accept abortion that doesn't mean he favor abortion. I don't under stand your point.
I thought both Christians and Muslims agreed that abortion for the most part is detestable?
In Islam there is only one case when abortion is possible. When completeing the pregnency will affect the health of the mother. It is considered a crime in Islamic law as much of scolars see it.
Should a true Muslim participate in a political system that most Muslims around the world refer to as "The Great Satan"?
I talked about that before. When they find another place to live and don't go to it, then you can talk about this point. Otherwise they have no other options, they are Americans like any other American and they have to represent themselves.
02 Dec 06
Originally posted by whodeyDo read my posts kids, I said for the MOST PART, hence, I was not including all "Christians".
[b]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738024/posts
I thought both Christians and Muslims agreed that abortion for the most part is detestable?
02 Dec 06
Originally posted by ahosyneySo in other words, a Muslim is free to participate in the government that governs over him no matter the type of government? You say that a Muslim is free to do so because they have no other option? What about the option of moving out of a country or not moving to a country with a government they claim to be the great Satan? If they have the option to not live in America and do not move, are they at fault? The other possibility, however, is that not all Muslims hold the view that America is the great Satan. Do you think this also possible?
Hi Whodey here I'm 🙂
How many muslims live in USA? I think they are millions.
Many of them are born in USA, and it is considered their country, they have no other country to know. And as in the current political system in the world, there is no Islamic country that may be considered home for every Muslim. They have no other option to accept the fact ...[text shortened]... ions, they are Americans like any other American and they have to represent themselves.
I think there is anther possibility, however. A Muslim must fight across the globe for their faith which includes the most evil of countries which includes America. Perhaps they see it as evangalising for Allah? Perhaps they see themselves as lights unto a dark world as Christians see themselves?
My point about the abortion debate is that the Islamic Congressman has adopted the Democratic plateform of the pro-choice movement. Being a Democrate he is not obliged to do so, however, he has chosen to do so. He could have dissented from his parties position by oppossing abortion based on his religious beliefs but it appears he has not chosen to do so. I have heard of other Democratic politicians who have done so based on personal beliefs, why not the Islamic congressman? In your opinion, is he defying the Quran and Allah by not opposing the belief that abortion on demand should be legalized as it is today?
Edit: When I talk of abortion I am not talking about abortion in all circumstances, rather, I am only talking about abortion on demand. I don't think many would argue that abortion should be allowed if the mothers life were in danger if it were not done.
02 Dec 06
Originally posted by whodey"Abortion on demand" is another idiotic right wing catch phrase. Abortion is a medical procedure; it's like saying "heart surgery on demand".
So in other words, a Muslim is free to participate in the government that governs over him no matter the type of government? You say that a Muslim is free to do so because they have no other option? What about the option of moving out of a country or not moving to a country with a government they claim to be the great Satan? If they have the option to not ...[text shortened]... d argue that abortion should be allowed if the mothers life were in danger if it were not done.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
02 Dec 06
Originally posted by no1marauderBut the distinction is that people who have heart surgery actually need heart surgery, abortion-on-demand does not stipulate that the abortion be necassary, only that it be demanded.
"Abortion on demand" is another idiotic right wing catch phrase. Abortion is a medical procedure; it's like saying "heart surgery on demand".
02 Dec 06
Originally posted by Conrau KSo are you suggesting that abortion is not necessary?
But the distinction is that people who have heart surgery actually need heart surgery, abortion-on-demand does not stipulate that the abortion be necassary, only that it be demanded.
I would guess that most women who go through with an abortion struggle with the idea but choose it becuaes they feel it is in fact necessary.
02 Dec 06
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderHave you ever heard of an elective medical procedure such as a nose job? There is a difference betweeen a medical procedure that is recommended by a physician to help maintain ones health verses a medical procedure that is purely elective. To help drive home the point even further, have you ever heard of someone going home from the hospital AMA or against medical advice? A physician is obligated to tell their patients what medical procedures they recommend to help maintain their health or improve their health. Otherwise they may be held accountable as being medically negligent. The patient then has the option of declining medical treatement and go home AMA or accepting the treatement.
"Abortion on demand" is another idiotic right wing catch phrase. Abortion is a medical procedure; it's like saying "heart surgery on demand".
Pregnancy is a natural process that should be treated as such unless things go wrong medically during ones pregnancy. I suppose one could argue that an abortion could be recommended medically by a doctor for "psychological issues". However, one could argue the same in regards to any medical procedure a patient is requesting that a physician would not normally recommend as being needed to be done to help maintain ones health or improve it. The physician is then faced with going through with a medical procedure the patient is requesting or demanding to help aleviate a psychological issue verses adressing the psycholgical issue in and of itself.
02 Dec 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat about Congressmen swearing on a book that they hold to be sacred? Do you not think by doing so they are more likely to take such oaths more seiously? Perhaps atheists could swear on a book by Dawkins or Darwin.
Good! As an atheist I resent members of Congress being forced to swear an oath on the Christian religious book.
02 Dec 06
Originally posted by Conrau KPeople have heart surgery when they think they need it. People have abortions when they think they need it. There is no difference. No one can "demand" that a doctor do either.
But the distinction is that people who have heart surgery actually need heart surgery, abortion-on-demand does not stipulate that the abortion be necassary, only that it be demanded.
02 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYou are truly an idiot. No atheist thinks books by Dawkins or Darwin are infallible expressions of eternal truth by a higher being. Thus, it is not "sacred".
What about Congressmen swearing on a book that they hold to be sacred? Do you not think by doing so they are more likely to take such oaths more seiously? Perhaps atheists could swear on a book by Dawkins or Darwin.