Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Jun 2017, 10:25 am

freeman3 wrote:Yet somehow a Christian writing an article attacking Islam as having a "deficient ideology" and Muslims "stand condemned" is entitled to claim "religious test" when he is questioned about it.


If he was "questioned," that would be one thing. However, how is this NOT a religious test (prohibited by law)?

“I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about. I will vote no.”
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Jun 2017, 10:28 am

freeman3 wrote:The issue is actually pretty simple: could Vought defend his school and cite his beliefs in doing so without saying Islam has a deficient ideology and Muslims stand condemned? I think the answer to that is pretty clear.


No, he could not . . . because that was THE issue that got the professor fired. Again, it's a Christian college. Christian colleges have Christian statements of faith. When a professor violates that, he/she should expect to be fired. That's what happened. He was explaining how Islam is not compatible with a Christian statement of faith at a Christian college. Why is this so upsetting to a secular Jew like Bernie?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 12 Jun 2017, 8:20 am

Don't know where to begin really..

On whether or not Islam adheres to a deficient theology - absolutely. So does, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism by the way.

On anything Fate has said about Bernie so far - rubbish. Here's an explanation for you on why he may have said what he said....he was playing politics. He's a politician. He was obviously using Vought's remarks as a platform to do what he does, namely, play politics. The Bdog is a clever boy and I seriously doubt he would risk alienating millions of potential supporters. That is not his MO. His comment got picked up by the media and allowed him to make a political point about intolerance.

Fate wrote:
F
You, like Sanders, do not understand Christianity. I'm not going to debate your understanding of it. Look at the context of Vought's statement, look at the statement itself, then prove to me that he was doing anything other than defending Christianity. It is necessarily different in its beliefs than Islam.


Islam holds a deficient theology. That much is abundantly clear. But to take the additional step and say that Muslims stand condemned is 1. proof of Christianity's deficiency of theology ironically enough, especially certain strands of Protestant theology and 2. not very Christian to say.

Sorry Fate, Jesus never referred to himself as the Son of God. Son of Man? yes. Son of God? no

Freeman wrote:
What about all Muslims that would be affected by the travel ban?


In light of the fact that we are at war with Islamists, the ban is justified. At least temporarily until better assurances are in place than the nightmare system currently in place.

Freeman
Ok what happens to the following people:....


On this rather interesting question I refer you to Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner.

Freeman
At the end of the day there is no way for any religion to prove that their interpretation of God is right as compared to another religion. So religion divides over issues that can never be proven.


Not quite.

For this I refer you to Lessing's play of Nathan the Wise and his parable of the ring.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/8/900321/-
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6593
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 Jun 2017, 8:33 am

https://www.thoughtco.com/origin-of-the-son-of-god-700710

Dag,
Jesus refers to God as the Father, so that would make him a Son.

As the Son of God, Jesus Christ continues to make the same promise of eternity in heaven to anyone who follows him today: "For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” (John 6:40, NIV)


I would hope that you do not think that Jesus Christ was talking about Joseph, husband of Mary. Contextually, that does not make sense.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Jun 2017, 10:47 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:On anything Fate has said about Bernie so far - rubbish. Here's an explanation for you on why he may have said what he said....he was playing politics. He's a politician. He was obviously using Vought's remarks as a platform to do what he does, namely, play politics. The Bdog is a clever boy and I seriously doubt he would risk alienating millions of potential supporters. That is not his MO. His comment got picked up by the media and allowed him to make a political point about intolerance.


Yes, politics at the expense of the Constitution. Then again, it's not like he alienated an actual constituency of his. Christians would not vote for him anyway.

Fate wrote:
F
You, like Sanders, do not understand Christianity. I'm not going to debate your understanding of it. Look at the context of Vought's statement, look at the statement itself, then prove to me that he was doing anything other than defending Christianity. It is necessarily different in its beliefs than Islam.


Islam holds a deficient theology. That much is abundantly clear. But to take the additional step and say that Muslims stand condemned is 1. proof of Christianity's deficiency of theology ironically enough, especially certain strands of Protestant theology and 2. not very Christian to say.

Sorry Fate, Jesus never referred to himself as the Son of God. Son of Man? yes. Son of God? no


Do you really want to debate that? Really?

Why were the Jews who listened to Him ready to stone Him? I'll let them answer and then you can explain (or mis-explain) how He did not say He was the Son of God.

(Jn. 10:24-33 ESV) So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me,
26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
30 I and the Father are one."
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."


Now, use your vast theological and Greek training to explain how Jesus was not claiming Deity. I'll wait.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 Jun 2017, 12:29 pm

dag
In light of the fact that we are at war with Islamists, the ban is justified. At least temporarily until better assurances are in place than the nightmare system currently in place.


Why do you think the current system of vetting immigrants and refugees and visitors is a nightmare?
How many foreign terrorists have managed to kill Americans since 9/11?
The answer is 0.
http://people.com/politics/donald-trump ... tatistics/

http://www.businessinsider.com/death-ri ... nts-2017-1

If the situation was as nightmarish as you make out, not having Trumps ban in place since January should have resulted in some serious mayhem in the US.
Nothing has happened, and its June.
System must be working to keep the threat to a minimum. 1 in 45,808....
On the other hand you have a 1 in 249 chance of being murdered...
A 1 in 358 chance of being killed by someone with a gun.

Some nightmare.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6593
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 Jun 2017, 1:01 pm

A better question is how many people have been killed by foreign terrorist in the world? You seem to want to bring other nations into discussion, so how many? I posted a link to the amount of terrorism in the last two years. Should be easy to count.

You bring up the statement that the US can learn from other nations. This would be a great time to learn how many dead are from Islamic terror attacks.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 12 Jun 2017, 1:49 pm

Hmm...with regard to the Travel Ban instead of looking at how many people in the US have been killed by immigrants from the 7 banned countries since 9-11--you know, the relevant question--we're supposed to look at all people killed by Islamic terrorists in the world? Wow...that sure is fair to hold people coming to the US from the 7 countries accountable for all Islamic terrorist attacks instead of just looking at the terrorist attacks that people from those 7 countries have done inside the US since 9-12...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 12 Jun 2017, 2:05 pm

Trump lost again in the 9th Circuit with regard to the revised Travrl Ban. He is definitely not winning so much that he is tired of winning...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes. ... y,amp.html

The 9th Circuit wrote: "It [revised travel order]does not provide any link between an individual’s nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism or their inherent dangerousness". The reverse has been true, actually, as evidenced by the data on terrorist attacks committed by immigrants coming from the 7 countries since 9-11. Something more is needed to label a person a terrorist threat other than just being Muslim or a Muslim coming from those 7 countries. That's what screening/vetting is for--to find out if there more than that in a person's background to make them too much of a risk for terrorism.

I don't think that anyone doubts that we should be very concerned about screening for possible Islamic terrorists coming into the US. We have not forgotten 9-11. However, existing screening has done an exceptionally good job of keeping those who pose a threat out and letting other Muslims in. It is sheer hysteria to ban all Muslims coming from those countries out, even temporarily.
Last edited by freeman3 on 12 Jun 2017, 2:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 Jun 2017, 2:10 pm

bbauska
A better question is how many people have been killed by foreign terrorist in the world? You seem to want to bring other nations into discussion, so how many? I posted a link to the amount of terrorism in the last two years. Should be easy to count.


Since the discussion was about the Trump proposed travel ban .... this is a non-sequitur.
Unless you somehow think the travel ban would positively affect terrorism trends outside of the US? In which case I'd really like to hear the explanation...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Jun 2017, 2:10 pm

freeman3 wrote:Trump lost again in the 9th Circuiit with regard to the revised Travrl Ban. He is definitely not winning so much that he is tired of winning...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes. ... y,amp.html

The 9th Circuit wrote: "It [revised travel order]does not provide any link between an individual’s nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism or their inherent dangerousness". The reverse has been true, actually.

I don't think that anyone doubts that we should be very concerned about screening Islamic terrorists coming into the US. We have not forgotten 9-11. However, existing screening has done an exceptionally good job of keeping those who pose a threat out and letting other Muslims in. It is sheer hysteria to ban all Muslims from those countries out, even temporarily.


And yet, even if it is sheer hysteria, it is the right of the President. Invoking the "establishment clause" as the 9th did is laughable. The decision should get overturned on the basis of common sense, let alone the law.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 12 Jun 2017, 4:25 pm

The 9th Circuit did not reach the Establishment Clause argument because it upheld the district court's injunction based on statutory grounds. It held that "plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits as least as to their arguments that EO2 contravenes the INA by exceeding the president's authority under (section) 1182(f), discriminating on the basis of nationality, and disregarding the procedures for setting the annual number of refugees."

Section 1182(f) is a congressional grant of power allowing the president to restrict a class of aliens coming into the country into the country for an indefinite period of time if their entry would be detrimental to the US. The court found there was insufficient support for a finding that entry of people from the 6 countries was detrimental because essentially there was no link shown between nationality and terrorism.

Section 1152(a)(1)(A) provides that can be no discrimination in the issuance of visas on the basis of nationality. The court first held that denial of entry was tantsmount to a denial of a visa. It then went to find the order discriminated on the basis of nationalitity.

Finally, the order changed the number of refugees allowed from 110,000 to 50,000. The court held that the president is required to comply with certain procedures (including consulting with Congress) and that was not done here.

That was the gist of the decision. Good news! It wasn't about the Establishment Clause...

The decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/ ... index.html
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6593
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 Jun 2017, 4:57 pm

rickyp wrote:bbauska
A better question is how many people have been killed by foreign terrorist in the world? You seem to want to bring other nations into discussion, so how many? I posted a link to the amount of terrorism in the last two years. Should be easy to count.


Since the discussion was about the Trump proposed travel ban .... this is a non-sequitur.
Unless you somehow think the travel ban would positively affect terrorism trends outside of the US? In which case I'd really like to hear the explanation...


Please look at the forum title. "Europe's Porous Borders". Makes sense that we discuss Europe.

BTW, You make me laugh. You call me on a non-sequiter? I think we just discovered what the P is in your name. It must mean Pot; as in pot and kettle...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Jun 2017, 5:06 pm

freeman3 wrote:The 9th Circuit did not reach the Establishment Clause argument because it upheld the district court's injunction based on statutory grounds. It held that "plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits as least as to their arguments that EO2 contravenes the INA by exceeding the president's authority under (section) 1182(f), discriminating on the basis of nationality, and disregarding the procedures for setting the annual number of refugees."

Section 1182(f) is a congressional grant of power allowing the president to restrict a class of aliens coming into the country into the country for an indefinite period of time if their entry would be detrimental to the US. The court found there was insufficient support for a finding that entry of people from the 6 countries was detrimental because essentially there was no link shown between nationality and terrorism.

Section 1152(a)(1)(A) provides that can be no discrimination in the issuance of visas on the basis of nationality. The court first held that denial of entry was tantsmount to a denial of a visa. It then went to find the order discriminated on the basis of nationalitity.

Finally, the order changed the number of refugees allowed from 110,000 to 50,000. The court held that the president is required to comply with certain procedures (including consulting with Congress) and that was not done here.

That was the gist of the decision. Good news! It wasn't about the Establishment Clause...

The decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/ ... index.html


Great! I look forward to them getting overturned anyway!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 12 Jun 2017, 5:18 pm

Oh, I think not...6-3 with Roberts and Kennedy joining the liberals and the three right-wing crazies--Thomas, Alioto, and Gorsuch--rubber-stamping the ban.