Agree with GB54, if they want to really push gun control they will need enough state action to push for a 2A modification or repeal so that the states can pursue their wackiness unimpeded.

While the gun banner drone of "common sense" rules goes on and on and on, so far Newsome is the only one with any concrete proposals on the table and hopefully we in CA will shoot them down en masse, and in the end even those strict rules aren't going to change a thing on the streets. They will just earn the enmity of gun owners.

berk18;842611668 said:

---

This is largely missing the point that some of us are trying to make. No one is saying that we should shut down churches because of clinic shootings. No one's saying that we should let thousands of Christians (even young orphans) die in the Mediterranean, or at the hands of ISIS, because of clinic shootings. No one's saying that Christians can't be good Americans because of clinic shootings. If this were purely an issue of nomenclature then your point would be well-taken, but in this particular case the rush to link terrorism with Islam more broadly carries some insidious policy implications, and comparable circumstances in the past have only led to bigotry and oppression. That's what makes some people "uncomfortable." Terrorism is one problem that we have to solve. Our response to terrorism ("Islam is fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy, and we'll all have to either convert or wipe it out") is another.

---

When is the last time anyone linked terrorism with Islam more broadly? I mean someone serious, not BillyBob down at the crab factory who is cleaning his shotgun and drinking a beer. We are hyper sensitive about doing the exact opposite. 99.99999% of the time everyone is careful to say "RADICAL Islamic terrorist" (well, other than our President and the Demo candidates, who can't bring themselves to even say the words). Then people mostly on the left start in with the diatribe about not condemning an entire religion. It is an absurdity. The adjective "Radical" differentiates the terrorists from the whole of the Muslim population.

I personally think it is completely fair to have the discussion about Islam and liberal democracy. Off the top of my head I can think of one predominantly Islamic country that has a legit democracy (Turkey). I'll admit to not being fully up to snuff on ME countries' forms of government right now, so maybe there are more. But the application of the religion by ME's governments is not exactly friendly to liberal democratic principles. Try being homosexual, having a beer or being a woman that wants to choose her own clothes, vote or drive a car. It is a fair discussion.

Over and above that, ISIS' philosophy appears to be grounded in the notion that even those Muslims are not "true" Muslims. Among their crimes is the fact that they allow people to vote. Of course, the vast majority of Muslims tell us that ISIS is wrong...but it is important to note that this gets into a whole bunch of religious minutia, the gist of which, as I understand it, is this: we don't think ISIS is wrong about their interpretation of the Quran, we just don't think they meet the criteria in the Quran to become a Caliphate and tell the rest of us we are supposed to now follow those rules. In other words, there's a version of Islam where all this stuff from ISIS really is legit. Sound compatible with liberal democracy to you?

And this is kind of important - if it is the case that Islam is consistent with liberal democracy, we need the discussion to educate people. The "All Muslims are not terrorists" conclusion is a discussion killer.

What's worse for world peace.....
The President and Democratic presidential candidates not saying the words, "Radical Islamic Terrorist", or....
Having Fox News and ALL Republican politicians and conservative Americans profess "we are at war against Islam" and "all Muslims in America should be issued special ID cards."
Just saying.

berk18;842610939 said:

---

Name one what? A Christian who condones violence against clinics? I'd name all of the Christians who've committed violence against clinics, for starters. Then, maybe I could make some innuendo about thousands of people who don't want to do it themselves, but just celebrate in private instead of actually firing the bullets.

Is your point that those aren't real Christians? Because that's what the overwhelming majority of Muslims say about ISIS. Which is my real point. I'm fine with you getting to define what Christianity is for you, even when some people do bad things with it. I'm not fine with you getting to define what Islam is for Muslims, for the same reasons that Bill Maher shouldn't get to define Christianity for you based on people who shoot up a Planned Parenthood.

---

Let me ask you some question so that you don't keep perpetuating ignorance about Christianity. What do you think Christianity means? What does it mean to be a Muslim? Do you believe someone is a Christian because they say they are? Has any murderers referred to anything in the New Testament as the cause of their killing? Has any Terrorist cited the Koran in justifying what they are doing? Honestly, I don't think you have the first clue as to what we believe or what the New Testament states. Yet, you come here and act as if you know our religion. Can you stop with the false characterization of the facts to perpetuate your bigotry? Thank you.

calbear93;842612446 said:

---

Let me ask you some question so that you don't keep perpetuating ignorance about Christianity. What do you think Christianity means? What does it mean to be a Muslim? Do you believe someone is a Christian because they say they are? Has any murderers referred to anything in the New Testament as the cause of their killing? Has any Terrorist cited the Koran in justifying what they are doing? Honestly, I don't think you have the first clue as to what we believe or what the New Testament states. Yet, you come here and act as if you know our religion. Can you stop with the false characterization of the facts to perpetuate your bigotry? Thank you.

---

I don't think his point is to denigrate Christianity. It's to use examples of self-described Christians who do bad things to demonstrate how Islam can be seen in a similar light.

Some might disagree with that analogy, but I think it's pretty clear he's not making broad negative judgments about Christianity.

tequila4kapp;842612406 said:

---

When is the last time anyone linked terrorism with Islam more broadly? I mean someone serious, not BillyBob down at the crab factory who is cleaning his shotgun and drinking a beer. We are hyper sensitive about doing the exact opposite. 99.99999% of the time everyone is careful to say "RADICAL Islamic terrorist" (well, other than our President and the Demo candidates, who can't bring themselves to even say the words). Then people mostly on the left start in with the diatribe about not condemning an entire religion. It is an absurdity. The adjective "Radical" differentiates the terrorists from the whole of the Muslim population.

---

You're right, people always add the disclaimer that "Lots of Muslims are good people." But then they turn around and propose policies that negatively impact those good people, proving that talk is cheap. Some Republican presidential candidates have proposed that we should only (or primarily?) allow Christian refugees from Syria. Are they serious enough people? The least serious has to be Trump (Mr. "Let's take out terrorists' families and maybe establish a national database of Muslims"), but he's also the frontrunner, and has been for months. This isn't a fringe problem. I've pulled this, for example, from another PAC-12 team's message board (written by a college-educated Californian):

Quote:

---

Let me explain this in very simple English so that everyone here can understand what's going on; Islam IS at war with the West. No qualifiers.

The difference between so-called radical Muslims and moderate Muslims is that radical Muslims want to cut infidels' heads off, while moderate Muslims simply want extremist Muslims to do the dirty work cutting infidels' heads off...

---

If you were to stumble upon that thread, you'd see that that's reasonably representative for that forum.

The debate over whether or not there actually is such a thing as a moderate Muslim shows up in conservative circles all the time. If you haven't encountered it yet, you're lucky.

tequila4kapp;842612406 said:

---

I personally think it is completely fair to have the discussion about Islam and liberal democracy. Off the top of my head I can think of one predominantly Islamic country that has a legit democracy (Turkey). I'll admit to not being fully up to snuff on ME countries' forms of government right now, so maybe there are more. But the application of the religion by ME's governments is not exactly friendly to liberal democratic principles. Try being homosexual, having a beer or being a woman that wants to choose her own clothes, vote or drive a car. It is a fair discussion.

---

What about all of the Muslims who live in liberal democracies? If they're doing that successfully and following the law, is Islam really incompatible with liberal democracy? I wouldn't want to be gay in Kenya either, and that country's 83% Christian. Western liberal democracies have changed a ton socially in the last 60 years (they were still chemically castrating gay men in Britain in the 1950's!), and unsurprisingly the whole world didn't follow suit over night. That has little to do with religion, as Christian countries with substantial rates of female genital mutilation (Kenya, CAR) show.

tequila4kapp;842612406 said:

---

Over and above that, ISIS' philosophy appears to be grounded in the notion that even those Muslims are not "true" Muslims. Among their crimes is the fact that they allow people to vote.

---

Why would we let ISIS define what is or isn't true Islam? We don't let the Wesboro Baptist Church define who is and isn't a Christian...

tequila4kapp;842612406 said:

---

Of course, the vast majority of Muslims tell us that ISIS is wrong...but it is important to note that this gets into a whole bunch of religious minutia, the gist of which, as I understand it, is this: we don't think ISIS is wrong about their interpretation of the Quran, we just don't think they meet the criteria in the Quran to become a Caliphate and tell the rest of us we are supposed to now follow those rules. In other words, there's a version of Islam where all this stuff from ISIS really is legit. Sound compatible with liberal democracy to you?

---

And now we're in "There's no such thing as a moderate Muslim" territory, which, I'm told, no serious person believes. By definition, Muslims who aren't terrorists don't believe that ISIS's version of Islam is or will ever be "legit" because they don't think that we should be beheading people and blowing up soccer stadiums. Those differences aren't religious minutia.

As for belief in an eventual Muslim caliphate that ushers in the end of the world, I'm not going to begrudge any religion its eschatology. Jewish texts talk about a Messiah descended from King David returning, gathering all the Jews into Israel, and ruling happily ever after. I'd imagine that those passages didn't have liberal democracy in mind when they were written. Reform Jews don't believe that that's literally going to happen because sometimes people disagree on things or modernize their views. Are Reform Jews "real" Jews? At any rate, Orthodox and Hasidic Jews still believe that a Messiah's coming, and we don't see their brand of Judaism as a threat to liberal democracy. Who cares what's in the text? It's what they do.

calbear93;842612446 said:

---

Let me ask you some question so that you don't keep perpetuating ignorance about Christianity. What do you think Christianity means? What does it mean to be a Muslim? Do you believe someone is a Christian because they say they are? Has any murderers referred to anything in the New Testament as the cause of their killing? Has any Terrorist cited the Koran in justifying what they are doing? Honestly, I don't think you have the first clue as to what we believe or what the New Testament states. Yet, you come here and act as if you know our religion. Can you stop with the false characterization of the facts to perpetuate your bigotry? Thank you.

---

I haven't characterized Christianity in any way. In fact, I've argued, at length, that treating any religion as a monolithic entity is absurd, and argued over and over again that a religion's followers should be allowed to determine what that religion is for them. You don't want to say that some of the people who shoot up clinics are Christians, but in essence, you're defining yourself into a victory: "Christians don't murder people for their religion, therefore people who shoot abortion doctors for religious purposes aren't Christians." Then, when Muslims turn around and say the exact same thing about their own religion, there's an uproar, or we're being "too PC."

What if, every time a Planned Parenthood got terrorized by a self-professed Christian, I said "There's the religion of peace at it again!" Your post makes it clear that you would be very, very offended by that, and would call me a bigot (rightfully, if I were to say such a thing). So where's the sympathy for Muslims in a similar boat?

berk18;842612483 said:

---

I haven't characterized Christianity in any way. In fact, I've argued, at length, that treating any religion as a monolithic entity is absurd, and argued over and over again that a religion's followers should be allowed to determine what that religion is for them. You don't want to acknowledge that some of the people who shoot up clinics are Christians. In essence, you want to define yourself into a victory: "Christians don't murder people for their religion, therefore people who shoot abortion doctors for religious purposes aren't Christians." Then, when Muslims turn around and say the exact same thing about their own religion, there's an uproar, or we're being "too PC." I'm arguing against a double-standard in the way we treat different religions. I have no interest in telling people what their religion is or isn't.

---

I am sorry, but you are clearly not in any position to discuss Christianity since you clearly have never even read the New Testament. It would be like some crickets fan lecturing Cal fans on the history of Cal football and what it means to be Cal fan because they heard some people talking about a Cal game they watched ten years ago.

berk18;842612483 said:

---

any religion as a monolithic entity is absurd, and argued over and over again that a religion's followers should be allowed to determine what that religion is for them.

---

This is ridiculous. I am sorry, but for Christians, your sense of what religion should be does not preempt what the New Testament teaches us. I don't get to determine what Islam means and then call myself a Muslim. I don't get to determine what it means to be Jewish and then call myself a Jew. No, Christianity isn't up for debate. Someone can call themselves a Christian, but if they deny the gospel or still believe that salvation is through works, it is clear in the New Testament that they are not followers of Christ (and hence not a Christian). If they don't believe that saving faith means putting their ultimate faith in Jesus as their sovereign Lord and savior and not in money, prestige, other people's opinions, self desires, self righteousness, etc. (you cannot have two masters), then it is clear in the New Testament that they are not followers of Christ (and hence not a Christian). We Christians will continue to be flawed until our sanctification is complete, but we put our faith in Jesus Christ as our only hope (not our bank account, our job, good works), and, through our love for Christ who has already saved us and through the works of the Holy Spirit who gives us a new heart, we seek obedience (being poor in spirit - humility; being meek - not asserting our prestige or power but accepting the sovereign rule of God; merciful, peacemaker) not because our obedience will save us but because our salvation gives us an obedient heart. As the Bible teaches us, if you say you love God and hate your brother, you are a liar. The New Testament is very clear on what it means to be a Christian. That is why Trump will never get the Christian vote. He can waive his Bible, but if he claims he never needs to ask for forgiveness but instead will just try harder next time, he does not know Christ or God's standard.

berk18;842612483 said:

---

You don't want to acknowledge that some of the people who shoot up clinics are Christians. You don't want to acknowledge that some of the people who shoot up clinics are Christians. In essence, you want to define yourself into a victory: "Christians don't murder people for their religion, therefore people who shoot abortion doctors for religious purposes aren't Christians."

---

It is not up to me to decide who will ultimately be Christian and who will not. However, I can clearly state that there is nothing in the New Testament that would condone what they did, and, if they never repent of their disobedience and continue to flaunt their sin, the Bible is clear that they were never Christians to begin with. It is not my opinion on that standard. It is in the New Testament. If you don't believe me, read the Sermon on the Mount and read Matthew 5. Read 1 Corinthians 13. Read Galatians 5:22-23. Show me where the New Testament states that we need to take vengeance into our own hands and that we are justified in killing. No, Christianity teaches us that we are not to put our faith in the things of this world (i.e., why the Prosperity Gospel is so wicked) but instead allow the brokenness and the suffering in our lives to help us turn to God as our hope and find contentment in all things, and trust in God's work (including through our personal suffering) in teaching us to learn to love God and others better. How would a person who believes that our treasure lies in Heaven and believes in eternal life justify disobedience and rebellion against God by killing another as if the only thing that matters is life and death in this world? I may hate abortion and the killing of life, but I trust in my sovereign God to one day hold everyone accountable for their actions. I am not arrogant enough to think that I am the executioner and usurp my Lord's authority to be the final judge. So, it is not my victory. The only victory I claim is that of my Lord, and I boast only of Jesus.

So, I'm sorry. You have clearly never even read the Bible but are pretending to have sufficient expertise to debate the tenets of our faith. That is highly arrogant.

berk18;842612483 said:

---

What if, every time a Planned Parenthood got terrorized by a self-professed Christian, I said "There's the religion of peace at it again!" Your post makes it clear that you would be very, very offended by that, and would call me a bigot (rightfully, if I were to say such a thing). So where's the sympathy for Muslims in a similar boat?

---

Unlike what you have done, where have I pretended to know what Islam teaches? As a Christian, I obviously believe that Islam is a false religion since I believe that Jesus is the one and only true savior, and I have no desire to defend what I believe will lead to eternal separation from God for those who follow that religion. I am not looking to be politically correct, but I am also not trying to mischaracterize the tenets of their faith. All I was asking you to do was stop pretending to know what Christians believe when you don't, and stop using your misunderstanding to characterize who we are.

tequila4kapp;842612406 said:

---

When is the last time anyone linked terrorism with Islam more broadly? I mean someone serious, not BillyBob down at the crab factory who is cleaning his shotgun and drinking a beer. We are hyper sensitive about doing the exact opposite. 99.99999% of the time everyone is careful to say "RADICAL Islamic terrorist" (well, other than our President and the Demo candidates, who can't bring themselves to even say the words). Then people mostly on the left start in with the diatribe about not condemning an entire religion. It is an absurdity. The adjective "Radical" differentiates the terrorists from the whole of the Muslim population.

I personally think it is completely fair to have the discussion about Islam and liberal democracy. Off the top of my head I can think of one predominantly Islamic country that has a legit democracy (Turkey). I'll admit to not being fully up to snuff on ME countries' forms of government right now, so maybe there are more. But the application of the religion by ME's governments is not exactly friendly to liberal democratic principles. Try being homosexual, having a beer or being a woman that wants to choose her own clothes, vote or drive a car. It is a fair discussion.

Over and above that, ISIS' philosophy appears to be grounded in the notion that even those Muslims are not "true" Muslims. Among their crimes is the fact that they allow people to vote. Of course, the vast majority of Muslims tell us that ISIS is wrong...but it is important to note that this gets into a whole bunch of religious minutia, the gist of which, as I understand it, is this: we don't think ISIS is wrong about their interpretation of the Quran, we just don't think they meet the criteria in the Quran to become a Caliphate and tell the rest of us we are supposed to now follow those rules. In other words, there's a version of Islam where all this stuff from ISIS really is legit. Sound compatible with liberal democracy to you?

And this is kind of important - if it is the case that Islam is consistent with liberal democracy, we need the discussion to educate people. The "All Muslims are not terrorists" conclusion is a discussion killer.

---

A few comments:
1. There was a great article in the NYT magazine of a few weeks ago by a Muslim who is against ISIS grew up in Europe and now lives in the US as a writer with her Muslim husband.

Her point was that ISIS goal is a new Caliphate. But to get there it seeks to stop Muslims who are in the "Grey Zone" (Muslims who work, live and have friends with non-Musilims.) ISIS wants all Muslims everywhere to have to cut all ties with the West. They must be forced to choose between being a Muslim and living in the Grey Zone.
As she (and others) have pointed out ISIS attacked the part of Paris where Muslims and non-Muslims lived and relaxed side by side.
They were trying (i) to punish the Muslims living in the Grey Zone and (ii) to sow fear of Muslims among the non-Muslims. They want non-Muslims to fear the Muslims living in the Grey Zone so that those Muslims have no choice other than ISIS.

ISIS itself recognizes the differences among the Muslims; and wants to eliminate those differences.

Therefore for us to treat all Muslims alike, we are helping ISIS to achieve its goal.

2. Many of us Christians can see the difference between our selves and the extreme wing of Chritianity that believes it is OK to kill in order to save lives. it is OK to blow up Planned Parenthood Centers and kill doctors performing abortions in order to be good Christians. But there are not cries among the Christians to condemn these actions as bein antithetical to Christianity in large part because we know that these killers are abberations.
But there was a time not long ago when a large portion of Christians tortured and killed innocent people (Christian and non-Christian alike) because they believed that Christ (who preached turn the other cheek) wanted them to go out and kill those innocent people.
Thankfully we are past this stage (for the most part).

But if we are going to discuss religion and violence and Democracy, it is NOT legitimate to focus only on Muslims.
There is a book recently published "Fields of Blood" which focuses on the connection between religion and violence. The author focuses on all the major religions of the Earth. Her conclusion is that each religion by itself and at its core is non-violent and beneficial to the common person. But when religion gets mixed up with govenment, politics and the ruling of people is when it goes wrong. The government (be it an Emperor, King, Sultan, Caliph, Parliament or Congress) attempts to co-opt the furvor that is at the heart of religion and use it to control the population. It sows fear and hatred of other religions and other people. Fear which was not there when the religion originated.

The author demonstrates how this occurred for Chistians, Jews, Buddists, Muslims and even religions that no longer exist.

So before we start throwing stones at another religion, let's take an unbiased view at all religions and not judge them by their extreme wings.

calbear93;842612521 said:

---

I am sorry, but you are clearly not in any position to discuss Christianity since you clearly have never even read the New Testament. It would be like some crickets fan lecturing Cal fans on the history of Cal football and what it means to be Cal fan because they heard some people talking about a Cal game they watched ten years ago.

---

I've read the New Testament. In Greek. I've read the Bible cover to cover. I've read C.S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Platinga, among a host of others, first because I wasn't sure what I believed, and then because I cared to understand the views of those who disagreed with me, so I'm bringing a hell of a lot of good will to this conversation despite your general tone. Have you made similar efforts to understand Islam, or do you just like to talk about it?

calbear93;842612521 said:

---

This is ridiculous. I am sorry, but for Christians, your sense of what religion should be does not preempt what the New Testament teaches us. I don't get to choose what Islam means and then call myself a Muslim. I don't get to choose what it means to be Jewish and then call myself a Jew. No, Christianity isn't up for debate. Someone can call themselves a Christian, but if they deny the gospel or still believe that salvation is through works, it is clear in the New Testament that they are not followers of Christ (and hence not a Christian).

---

Of course Christianity is up for debate. That's why we had the Reformation, and why there are disputed points of doctrine among different denominations (do you believe in predestination, or nah?). Your point about salvation through works (or about how to prioritize works in the broader scheme of religious practice) is a CLASSIC example. The issue might be decided as far as you're concerned, but what you've said is far from universally accepted among the Christian community. As you go farther back in history, the disputes become even weirder and, frankly, bloodier. There is no one, obvious practice of Christianity that leaps out of the New Testament and into every sincere believer. If there is a God, then there might be one correct interpretation of those texts, but reasonable, genuine people can certainly read them and reach different conclusions on specific points, much in the way that reasonable Jews can disagree about whether an actual Messiah is coming. I suspect that, if we really got down to it, some of your doctrinal proclamations would be offensive to plenty of Christians.

Unfortunately, unreasonable people can also read these texts. If someone used Matthew 5:29-30 to justify literally cutting off peoples' hands and plucking out their eyes, they would be using the New Testament to justify violence. That's what's tricky about religious interpretation; what's a metaphor, and what's literal? As it happens, one's answer to that question depends a lot on what century they're born into. If someone used the New Testament to claim that certain barbaric Old Testament laws should still be in effect and then implemented those laws, they would be using the New Testament to justify violence. Those interpretations might well be wrong. If there is a God, He can decide which interpretations are wrong or right. When I'm dealing with other people, though, I don't really care what the right interpretation of their sacred text is. I only care what people tell me their religion is, because that's how I decide who's dangerous and who isn't.

berk18;842612545 said:

---

I've read the New Testament. In Greek. I've read the Bible cover to cover. I've read C.S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Platinga, among a host of others, first because I wasn't sure what I believed, and then because I cared to understand the views of those who disagreed with me, so I'm bringing a hell of a lot of good will to this conversation despite your general tone. Have you made similar efforts to understand Islam, or do you just like to talk about it?.

---

I have never pretended to know Islam and I have never talked about what they believe. So, how do I like to talk about it? Where have I talked about their religion in the way you talk about my religion? If you have read the Bible in Greek and still claim that those who kill people at clinics are Christians as described in the New Testament, I don't know what to say to you. Maybe you should read it in English next time.

berk18;842612545 said:

---

Of course Christianity is up for debate. That's why we had the Reformation, and why there are disputed points of doctrine among different denominations (do you believe in predestination, or nah?). Your point about salvation through works (more precisely: about how to prioritize works in the broader scheme of religious practice) is a CLASSIC example. The issue might be decided as far as you're concerned, but what you've said is far from universally accepted among the Christian community. There is no one, obvious practice of Christianity that leaps out of the New Testament and into every sincere believer. If there is a God, then there might be one correct interpretation of those texts, but reasonable, genuine people can certainly read them and reach different conclusions on specific points, much in the way that reasonable Jews can disagree about whether an actual Messiah is coming. I suspect that some of your doctrinal proclamations would be offensive to a great many Christians.

Unfortunately, unreasonable people can also read these texts. If someone used Matthew 5:29-30 to justify literally cutting off peoples' hands and plucking out their eyes, they would be using the New Testament to justify violence. If they used the New Testament to claim that certain barbaric Old Testament laws should still be in effect and then implemented those laws, they would be using the New Testament to justify violence. Those interpretations might well be wrong. If there is a God, He can decide which interpretations are wrong or right. I'm don't really care what the right interpretation is, though. I only care what people tell me their religion is, because that's how I decide who's dangerous and who isn't.

---

Reformation wasn't about debate. Reformation was about reforming a corrupt Church that claimed to be based on the Bible and yet deviated from everything that the Bible taught. It was returning back to what the Bible teaches instead of using "faith" as the reason for power and rule over others.

Yes, there are different denomination, but I don't see that as debate on Christianity. There are debates about details of theology, but not what it means to be a Christian. As far as predestination, those who are Arminian conveniently ignore Romans and other epistles, but it is not a question of Christianity. Even Arminian believe in faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone. If you think Christianity or what it means to be Christian is defined by how one gets baptized, etc., then you missed the point. Unless you take out Romans, Galatians, etc., no Christian would believe that Jesus wasn't enough to save but that we need to help Him finish the job with our good works. No, while there is some debate on whether good works follows faith (I don't see how someone could argue it doesn't without ignoring Jesus' teaching about good tree and without ignoring James' epistles) and whether salvation can be lost (I don't see how someone could argue that a free gift from God can be lost by our own actions when we are not saved by our actions), there is no serious debate among Christians that we are not saved by works (this is the main difference between Catholicism and Christianity - whether we are saved by works and whether we need to be baptized to be saved). There are debates about ancillary aspects of theology and about church governance but not about what it means to be Christian and not on the gospel or how or why we are saved. So, no, Christianity is not up for debate.

Also, what you are stating now is different than what you stated earlier. If you are stating that someone's interpretation of the relevant religious text helps you understand who is a danger to you in this world, then I agree. However, I can't choose an interpretation of Christianity that deviates from the Bible or what Jesus taught, and have that interpretation be just as valid as any other interpretation.

berk18;842612477 said:

---

You're right, people always add the disclaimer that "Lots of Muslims are good people." But then they turn around and propose policies that negatively impact those good people, proving that talk is cheap. Some Republican presidential candidates have proposed that we should only (or primarily?) allow Christian refugees from Syria. Are they serious enough people?

---

It is an uncomfortable phrase but there's some basis for it. Christian's have been persecuted and killed and aren't radical Islamist terrorists. As such, they pose no national security threat, at least that I'm aware of. The overwhelming majority of Muslims from Syria also pose no threat but based on demographics and ideology, screening is necessary - as the President said, Toddlers and elderly women don't pose much of a threat. Unfortunately, the same can't be uniformly said for every demographic.

berk18;842612477 said:

---

The least serious has to be Trump (Mr. "Let's take out terrorists' families and maybe establish a national database of Muslims"), but he's also the frontrunner, and has been for months. This isn't a fringe problem.

---

Good point. That's asinine. I suppose I inherently discount it because I fundamentally have faith that we'd never do it. But that's a bad assumption. Thanks for pointing that out.

berk18;842612477 said:

---

Why would we let ISIS define what is or isn't true Islam? We don't let the Wesboro Baptist Church define who is and isn't a Christian...

---

Because they are doing it. It is why they have attacked Iraq, Syria, Jordan and others. I don't remember the word for it, but they've got one, for Muslim's who aren't 'real' (bad word, probably, but the best I can do right now w/out looking it up).

I think you are missing the point. Virtually no Muslim anywhere challenges the underlying verses in the Quran that ISIS uses to justify its practices. They merely contend that ISIS doesn't have the authority to use the verses. In other words, the religion DOES have a mandate to do these things, just not now, not by ISIS. That is fundamentally different from other religions. In those cases you typically have crazy people twisting scripture (or whatever) to support their innate insanity. Totally different dynamic.

berk18;842612477 said:

---

And now we're in "There's no such thing as a moderate Muslim" territory, which, I'm told, no serious person believes. By definition, Muslims who aren't terrorists don't believe that ISIS's version of Islam is or will ever be "legit" because they don't think that we should be beheading people and blowing up soccer stadiums. Those differences aren't religious minutiae.

---

There are hundreds of millions of moderate, reasonable, peace loving Muslims. But they are - as I understand it - in a bit of a religious pickle. Islam doesn't tolerate questioning The Prophet. The chapters and language used by ISIS are in the Quran. Every single thing I've read on this which cites Muslim authority makes the Caliphate a question of When, not If and the eventual call to arms is a mandate, not a request (this is how ISIS is able to recruit new fighters - they convince them of the legitimacy of the Caliphate and the person's duty to come fight. This is fundamentally different from AQ and others, which have a more basic anti-Western approach, for which I agree with you the level headed common decency of peaceful Muslims is a fine defense). Perhaps I am wrong in this understanding and if so would be happy to read about and learn of alternatives.

berk18;842612477 said:

---

As for belief in an eventual Muslim caliphate that ushers in the end of the world, I'm not going to begrudge any religion its eschatology. Jewish texts talk about a Messiah descended from King David returning, gathering all the Jews into Israel, and ruling happily ever after. I'd imagine that those passages didn't have liberal democracy in mind when they were written. Reform Jews don't believe that that's literally going to happen because sometimes people disagree on things or modernize their views. Are Reform Jews "real" Jews? At any rate, Orthodox and Hasidic Jews still believe that a Messiah's coming, and we don't see their brand of Judaism as a threat to liberal democracy. Who cares what's in the text? It's what they do.

---

As a preliminary matter, the Jewish texts you reference don't appear to be on the same level as the Caliphate stuff from the Quran. I'm not up to speed on verses from Revelations, but in all my life I've never once heard a sermon on how any of them call for Christians to wage war, etc. So the comparison is flawed from the get go. With all do respect, one starting point for the folks on your side of this has to be to acknowledge there are some differences in this domain.

Also, Berk and others - thanks for keeping this civil. Dialogue, understanding, learning = good.

calbear93;842612564 said:

---

I have never pretended to know Islam and I have never talked about what they believe. So, how do I like to talk about it?

---

You're right. I'd assumed that your response to me was somehow relevant to the conversation that several of us were having about Islam in this thread. I apologize if that assumption was unfair. If you had no interest in the discussion of Islam at all, and you somehow took my argument to mean that Christianity is an inherently murderous religion, then maybe it's best if we just stop this tangent.

calbear93;842612564 said:

---

Reformation wasn't about debate. Reformation was about reforming a corrupt Church that claimed to be based on the Bible and yet deviated from everything that the Bible taught. It was returning back to what the Bible teaches instead of using "faith" as the reason for power and rule over others.

---

Any Catholics on the board want to take this one?

calbear93;842612564 said:

---

Also, what you are stating now is different than what you stated earlier. If you are stating that someone's interpretation of the relevant religious text helps you understand who is a danger to you in this world, then I agree. However, I can't choose an interpretation of Christianity that deviates from the Bible or what Jesus taught, and have that interpretation be just as valid as any other interpretation.

---

If you weren't reading the broader discussion relating to Islam, then I understand why there's confusion here. My argument, all along, has been that Islam is not inherently violent or incompatible with liberal democracy just because a small number of people use the Koran as justification for terrorism. The only thing that matters for the discussion that I was actually having over the last 15 pages is what people do with their religion, which is exactly what you've just said you agree with. So that's the point that I've been making. To this, some people object "Well then, why do some people find scriptural support for terrorism in the Koran?" To which I would respond "For the same reasons that some people find scriptural support for terrorism in the Bible; namely, for bad reasons." I called those people "Christians" because this was how we were talking about Muslims. Some insist on everyone saying "Islamic terrorism," but then get tremendously uncomfortable when anyone says "Christian terrorism." The point isn't that both religions support terrorism, the point is that there are lots of ways to treat both religions that have nothing to do with terrorism. I personally would rather not make a big deal out of the religion involved at all, and certainly have no interest in saying what any religion is or isn't. Does anything about the argument that still seem objectionable, or can we move on from this?

berk18;842612599 said:

---

You're right. I'd assumed that your response to me was somehow relevant to the conversation that several of us were having about Islam in this thread. I apologize if that assumption was unfair. If you had no interest in the discussion of Islam at all, and you somehow took my argument to mean that Christianity is an inherently murderous religion, then maybe it's best if we just stop this tangent.



Any Catholics on the board want to take this one?



If you weren't reading the broader discussion relating to Islam, then I understand why there's confusion here. My argument, all along, has been that Islam is not inherently violent or incompatible with liberal democracy just because a small number of people use the Koran as justification for terrorism. The only thing that matters for the discussion that I was actually having over the last 15 pages is what people do with their religion, which is exactly what you've just said you agree with. So that's the point that I've been making. To this, some people object "Well then, why do some people find scriptural support for terrorism in the Koran?" To which I would respond "For the same reasons that some people find scriptural support for terrorism in the Bible; namely, for bad reasons." I called those people "Christians" because this was how we were talking about Muslims. Some insist on everyone saying "Islamic terrorism," but then get tremendously uncomfortable when anyone says "Christian terrorism." The point isn't that both religions support terrorism, the point is that there are lots of ways to treat both religions that have nothing to do with terrorism. I personally would rather not make a big deal out of the religion involved at all, and certainly have no interest in saying what any religion is or isn't. Does anything about the argument that still seem objectionable, or can we move on from this?

---

Fair enough. I don't know enough about Islam to know whether the Koran supports violence against non-believers, but, if you and I agree that the New Testament does not condone killing and that those who claim to be "Christians" still put faith in the things of this world to justify killing of another are not Christians under the New Testament, our disagreement was not really a disagreement.

berk18;842612599 said:

---

You're right. I'd assumed that your response to me was somehow relevant to the conversation that several of us were having about Islam in this thread. I apologize if that assumption was unfair. If you had no interest in the discussion of Islam at all, and you somehow took my argument to mean that Christianity is an inherently murderous religion, then maybe it's best if we just stop this tangent.



Any Catholics on the board want to take this one?



If you weren't reading the broader discussion relating to Islam, then I understand why there's confusion here. My argument, all along, has been that Islam is not inherently violent or incompatible with liberal democracy just because a small number of people use the Koran as justification for terrorism. The only thing that matters for the discussion that I was actually having over the last 15 pages is what people do with their religion, which is exactly what you've just said you agree with. So that's the point that I've been making. To this, some people object "Well then, why do some people find scriptural support for terrorism in the Koran?" To which I would respond "For the same reasons that some people find scriptural support for terrorism in the Bible; namely, for bad reasons." I called those people "Christians" because this was how we were talking about Muslims. Some insist on everyone saying "Islamic terrorism," but then get tremendously uncomfortable when anyone says "Christian terrorism." The point isn't that both religions support terrorism, the point is that there are lots of ways to treat both religions that have nothing to do with terrorism. I personally would rather not make a big deal out of the religion involved at all, and certainly have no interest in saying what any religion is or isn't. Does anything about the argument that still seem objectionable, or can we move on from this?

---

You are trying to have a discussion on interpretation of religious texts without fully appreciating the political realities of the time.
Luther did condemn what the Catholic Church was doing and condemned the entire Catholic Church.
Catholic reformers agreed that the Church was in need of Reformation but did not agree that the entire Church should be condemned and abandoned they believed that it should be reformed from within.
However the feelings of the common person were so strong that they did not want to hear fine line theological argument they felt that Luther was challenging all they belived in. The Protestants took a similar position.
Then politics got involved. Local rulers who wanted to throw off the rule of the Catholic Kings and Emperors threw their support to the Protestant Reformers. They took control of the lands owned by the Catholic church and taxes collected by it. They provided the money and soldiers needed to oppose the Catholic Kings and Emperors.

Shake well and Stir.
There you have the Wars of Religion of the 16th and 17th centuries.
Part religious theology, part wars for local political autonomy, lots of hate and lots of violence.

tequila4kapp;842612575 said:

---

I think you are missing the point. Virtually no Muslim anywhere challenges the underlying verses in the Quran that ISIS uses to justify its practices. They merely contend that ISIS doesn't have the authority to use the verses. In other words, the religion DOES have a mandate to do these things, just not now, not by ISIS. That is fundamentally different from other religions. In those cases you typically have crazy people twisting scripture (or whatever) to support their innate insanity. Totally different dynamic.

---

I guess I would say that religions mandate a lot of things, and mandates have a tendency to fall by the wayside when they become unpleasant for a religious community. The New Testament is reasonably explicit about the moral status of homosexuality, for example, but now that that's a losing battle some people are "discovering" interpretations that mollify the relevant passages. I suspect that many people will simply stop reading those passages altogether, as if they don't exist. Christians interpret the Bible's comments on women in various ways, and how you interpret it depends on who, where, and when you are. This is really just the history of religion, and is by no means limited to our age. Jewish religious texts have some incredibly violent stuff in them (the Koran and its violence didn't pop out of a vacuum, after all), but we don't hold Jews to those passages because they've told us that they don't count anymore, and the conversation stops there. Unfortunately, when Muslims try to tell us that those verses don't count ("Islam is a religion of peace! These people aren't true Muslims!"), we say "Are you sure? Because I think that, if you're going to be a Muslim, they really should count."

tequila4kapp;842612575 said:

---

As a preliminary matter, the Jewish texts you reference don't appear to be on the same level as the Caliphate stuff from the Quran. I'm not up to speed on verses from Revelations, but in all my life I've never once heard a sermon on how any of them call for Christians to wage war, etc. So the comparison is flawed from the get go. With all do respect, one starting point for the folks on your side of this has to be to acknowledge there are some differences in this domain.

---

Interpretation of these texts is so historically contingent. In the centuries straddling the year 0, a number of people led violent uprisings against Rome and Greece, and these wars (insurgencies?) were seen as fulfilling prophecies about the Messiah liberating Israel. Judas Maccabeus, for example, was seen as fulfilling stuff in Daniel 10 about conquering the Greeks and Persians. In the 1st century, a group of Jews called sicarii carried daggers in their cloaks and went to public gatherings, targeting Romans, Greeks, and even other Jews if they opposed rebellion. These people were part of the so-called "fourth sect" of Jews, whose founder Judas of Galilee was proclaimed the Messiah by some. So are Jewish Messianic prophecies violent? I guess it might be best to say that they're violent enough, and there's certainly a lot of war, and whether you choose to activate that aspect of them or not depends on your historical circumstances.

Protestant heretics are supposed to be Christians, now? Who comes up with this stuff?

What is worse? OT re politics or OT re religion.

93gobears;842612678 said:

---

What is worse? OT re politics or OT re religion.

---

Is there a difference?

LINK: Supreme Court hands the NRA a major defeat: Court rejects challenge to local assault weapons ban

Quote:

---

After years of expanding the Second Amendment, SCOTUS delivers a victory to gun control advocates

Against the wishes of conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a Chicago area ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines for ammunition, dealing a major blow to the NRA.

On Monday, the high court refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a 2013 ordinance passed by the city of Highland Park, Illinois, without giving reason. The NRA and 24 U.S. states urged the Court to hear the case brought forth by a Highland Park resident and the Illinois State Rifle Association, according to Reuters. The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously rejected the challenge, upholding the Highland Park measure as constitutional. Similar bans exist in California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Connecticut. The Newtown, Connecticut gunman who killed 20 schoolchildren and their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary used assault weapons equipped with high-capacity 30-round magazines.

---

beelzebear;842612801 said:

---

LINK: Supreme Court hands the NRA a major defeat: Court rejects challenge to local assault weapons ban

---

Who, not in law enforcement or the military, requires an assault weapon? No one. Good for the Court. I want the second amendment upheld. This ruling is not inconsistent with that.

1979bear;842612836 said:

---

Who, not in law enforcement or the military, requires an assault weapon? No one. Good for the Court. I want the second amendment upheld. This ruling is not inconsistent with that.

---

Many 'Murkuns have a different view, and they own Washington.

1979bear;842612836 said:

---

Who, not in law enforcement or the military, requires an assault weapon? No one. Good for the Court. I want the second amendment upheld. This ruling is not inconsistent with that.

---

calbear93;842612609 said:

---

Fair enough. I don't know enough about Islam to know whether the Koran supports violence against non-believers, but, if you and I agree that the New Testament does not condone killing and that those who claim to be "Christians" still put faith in the things of this world to justify killing of another are not Christians under the New Testament, our disagreement was not really a disagreement.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately throughout history there have been many people who called themselves Christians who claimed that the New Testament condoned killing both non-Christians and other Christians (fellow travelers so to speak).

GivemTheAxe;842612862 said:

---

calbear93;842612609 said:

---

Fair enough. I don't know enough about Islam to know whether the Koran supports violence against non-believers, but, if you and I agree that the New Testament does not condone killing and that those who claim to be "Christians" still put faith in the things of this world to justify killing of another are not Christians under the New Testament, our disagreement was not really a disagreement.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately throughout history there have been many people who called themselves Christians who claimed that the New Testament condoned killing both non-Christians and other Christians (fellow travelers so to speak).

---

I'm interested in learning who these people were. Are you referring to the Holy Roman Emperors who were neither emperors, Roman, or holy?

I use to be a democrat but I'm not anymore. There is relatively minor differences between who the parties are beholden to. They have used the same talking points since when I was young and listening to Reagans elections. Nothing changes much in 3 decades apparently. In terms of the issue with islam I suspect fear is mostly driving the issue on both sides. Democrats that tell you they aren't scared are full of it..and we know Republicans are. It's a complex issue as a whole, However I suspect if you tracked down who's funding isis you get to the root of the problem. Since both parties are funded by who's holding the purse strings I suspect they can come up with a solution that will eventually tone down the fear aspect, since fear is bad for business.

The only reason Isis is strong in the middle east atm is because they have huge funding behind them. They have been able to develop an army of whackos who are threatening the power base in the middle east(ie. oil..which is why Russia has joined the party). When Isis rolls thru your town now...you either join them, run, or die. Isis isn't all that different from the Wahabbi's decades ago except they have far more money and an army now.

MinotStateBeav;842612872 said:

---

I use to be a democrat but I'm not anymore. There is relatively minor differences between who the parties are beholden to. They have used the same talking points since when I was young and listening to Reagans elections. Nothing changes much in 3 decades apparently. In terms of the issue with islam I suspect fear is mostly driving the issue on both sides. Democrats that tell you they aren't scared are full of it..and we know Republicans are. It's a complex issue as a whole, However I suspect if you tracked down who's funding isis you get to the root of the problem. Since both parties are funded by who's holding the purse strings I suspect they can come up with a solution that will eventually tone down the fear aspect, since fear is bad for business.

---

I am a life long Democrat (I am now 70 years old).
I am not afraid of Muslims. I believe that ISIS is a threat and must be wiped out. But I am more concerned that politicians (Republican and Democratic) will overreact in fear and make the situation an us (Christians) vs. them (Muslims).
This is exactly what ISIS wants to accomplish; and many politicians are playing right into ISIS's hands.

Using FDR's words "all we have to fear is Fear itself." Our own fear will destroy us IF WE LET IT.

GivemTheAxe;842612873 said:

---

I am a life long Democrat (I am now 70 years old).
I am not afraid of Muslims. I believe that ISIS is a threat and must be wiped out. But I am more concerned that politicians (Republican and Democratic) will overreact in fear and make the situation an us (Christians) vs. them (Muslims).
This is exactly what ISIS wants to accomplish; and many politicians are playing right into ISIS's hands.

Using FDR's words "all we have to fear is Fear itself." Our own fear will destroy us IF WE LET IT.

---

Lest we forget. 74 years ago in the period leading up to Executive Order 9066 rounding up US Citizens of Japanese ancestry and relocating them to internment camps there was "fear, hostility and racism directed at many of Japanese ancestry...."A viper is nonetheless a viper wherever the egg is hatched", declared an editorial in the Los Angeles Times...."Herd them up pack 'em off and give 'em the inside room of the badlands" wrote syndicated columnist Henry McLemore. "Personally I hate the Japanese. and that goes for all of them."...."A Jap's a Jap--makes no difference whether he is an American citizen or not", announced Lt. General John DeWitt head of the Army's Western Defense Force. "I don't want any of them."

Quoted from "Target Tokyo... Jimmy Doolittle and the Raid that Avenged Pearl Harbor".

calbear93;842612609 said:

---

Fair enough. I don't know enough about Islam to know whether the Koran supports violence against non-believers, but, if you and I agree that the New Testament does not condone killing and that those who claim to be "Christians" still put faith in the things of this world to justify killing of another are not Christians under the New Testament, our disagreement was not really a disagreement.

---

The question about the Koran I can answer, but it runs into an interesting "interpretation" issue.

One of the verses of the Koran translates into "Kill the unbelievers wherever you may find them." This is what ISIS and other Islamist groups use to justify killing anyone who doesn't agree with him.

However, I have had Muslims argue that this verse pertained only to the time when Mohammed and his followers were returning to Mecca to claim it as the capital of the growing Islamic nation.

Of course the question them comes down to who decides which interpretation is correct.

1979bear;842612836 said:

---

Who, not in law enforcement or the military, requires an assault weapon? No one. Good for the Court. I want the second amendment upheld. This ruling is not inconsistent with that.

---

What is an "assault weapon"?

mvargus;842612900 said:

---

What is an "assault weapon"?

---

Anything that looks scary and has a lot of black plastic.

pingpong2;842612901 said:

---

Anything that looks scary and has a lot of black plastic.

---

Anyone who thinks that a gun looks inherently scary puzzles me. If no one is touching it, its nothing more than an elaborately decorated metal rod.

UrsaMajor;842607743 said:

---

Another mass shooting incident. This one in San Bernardino at a Center for developmentally disabled. 3 shooters, "at least 14 dead and 20+ injured."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-regionion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

---

No. it's not. Nor is mass murder a new thing.

mvargus;842612898 said:

---

The question about the Koran I can answer, but it runs into an interesting "interpretation" issue.

One of the verses of the Koran translates into "Kill the unbelievers wherever you may find them." This is what ISIS and other Islamist groups use to justify killing anyone who doesn't agree with him.

However, I have had Muslims argue that this verse pertained only to the time when Mohammed and his followers were returning to Mecca to claim it as the capital of the growing Islamic nation.

Of course the question them comes down to who decides which interpretation is correct.

---

Not entirely correct. Combat is only ordered against those who are attacking or killing the innocent Muslims or fighting against the established Muslim state.