Where is Liberty and freedom? Will it someday become extinct?

[shmogie]

Uh-huh. Which is why we have several thousand different denominations of Christianity who all interpret the Bible differently.

Denominations major in minors. The fundamentals are simple and obvious, the differences are related to style and overemphasis on certain points. Where the problem lies for some denominations is when they decide based on their wants or desires, to carve out and minimize what they don't like. They manufacture their own religion, partially denying the Bible, meaning denying Christ.

 

[shmogie]

Your statistics are out of date. The number was closer too 70% in 2014, and has been steadily falling since the nineties. From Pew at http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

"the percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated - describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular" - has jumped more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8%."​

The rate of decline seems to be accelerating. There was only a 10% decline between 1990 and 2008, 18 years ( source ). This was an almost 8% decline in 7 years. Christians will be a minority in America in about 20 years or less at this rate.



There is no murder involved because murder is deliberate, unlawful homicide. Abortion is legal.



Feel free to test that and discover what your rights really are. There seems to be a notion among the faithful in America now that religious sensibilities trump everything else. Many of the rest of us don't agree. If the Supreme Court finds agrees with you and finds in favor of the Masterpiece baker, Americans will be free to discriminate against one another however they choose by claiming religious belief. You might walk into a restaurant with a crucifix around your neck and denied service for that if it offends the religious sensibilities of the restauranteur.



Yes, one should be aware of these people. They also go by the name Reconstructionists. What they are are Christian theocrats, and they most assuredly would bring inquisitions back if given the power:

Are they a real threat? I can't judge that. While the numbers that self-identify as Christian is declining as indicated above, they've already begun creeping into government in much larger numbers. Much of Trumps cabinet are very religious Christians (Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry, Ben Carson, Scott Pruitt), and they're doing exactly what you would expect them to be doing. DeVos (education) is weakening safeguards for LGBT students and reassigning public school dollars to voucher programs - code for religious schools, which is still a long ways from the following:

"Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost...executions are community projects - not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants...That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians." - Christian Dominionist Gary North bemoaning the influence that humanism has had​

This is the face of Christianity absent the tempering of secular humanism. This is what Islam looks like in the Middle East, which was deprived of the principles of humanism, which enshrined humanist principles in the colonies in the form of a new nation with a secular government and put an end to killing witches.

I've long said that I see no reason to believe that if it had been the other way around - Muslims tempered by a few centuries of humanist influence and Christians still living in theocratic or quasi-theocratic nations - that it would be the Christians throwing homosexuals off of towers and burning infidels alive in cages. Why should we think otherwise? The two religions aren't that different on paper. The differences are the cultures in which they are rendered. Didn't the Dominionist quoted above say essentially that - "how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians"? He wants to return to stoning.

No, your statistics are out of date, the latest comes from the Federal government office that keeps track of demographics, newer than a private polling company.

You amaze me in who you choose to quote as representative of Christian thought. You find the most extreme voice, rejected by 95% of Christians as representative of Christian thought. can you spell T O T A L B I A S ? I haven't stooped to quoting the most insane humanists, but if ths is the way the conversation is to be formed, I happily can, and liberal humanist loons make quite interesting reading.

Your idea about Christianity and islam being " not that much different on paper", with respect, belies your complete ignorance of either.

I have had formal Christian theological training, and have been ordained as a lay Elder. I know a bit on the Faith.

Since 9/11 I have studied islam in detail, it's holy books, it's history, it's theology. To say the two religions are akin is blatantly false. Culture is irrelevant, the two religions and how they are to be practiced, anywhere, are defined clearly and unwaveringly in the Holy books of each.

Murder is the illegal killing of another. The premeditated murder of another in most states is called first degree murder. The murder of a pregnant woman results in the charge of DOUBLE murder, there are two murder victims, the pregnant woman and her baby. Killing unborn baby's is murder.

What you knowingly or unknowingly fail to grasp is that the legality of abortion, the killing of an unborn baby has never been adjudicated. If it were, based upon the above and the Constitution it would be judged as murder. Knowing this, and being a very liberal pro abortion court i.e. pro murder, the Warren court manufactured a right, privacy, based on privilege, that says the act can never be legally known, based upon patient, physician privilege.

Abortion isn't legal, you just can never know legally if it has occurred.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Denominations major in minors. The fundamentals are simple and obvious, the differences are related to style and overemphasis on certain points. Where the problem lies for some denominations is when they decide based on their wants or desires, to carve out and minimize what they don't like. They manufacture their own religion, partially denying the Bible, meaning denying Christ.

Uh-huh.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, one should be aware of these people. They also go by the name Reconstructionists. What they are are Christian theocrats, and they most assuredly would bring inquisitions back if given the power:

Are they a real threat? .

In Africa, Christian missionaries have stoked the fires of witch-burnings, and it is increasing since the last time I looked at the issue. First it was just in Kenya, but has now spread to other nations. Suspected witches are beaten and then set on fire. The scenes are gruesome. I won't post any videos here, but if you search YouTube for 'Christians burn witches in Kenya', a good number of hits will come up.

Villagers who accuse an elder family member of being a witch is a way of stealing their property and land from them.

In India, Christian missionaries attend Hindu cremation funerals, and shout epithets condemning their gods into the faces of the mourning families as they are leaving the gathering.

 

[shmogie]

In Africa, Christian missionaries have stoked the fires of witch-burnings, and it is increasing since the last time I looked at the issue. First it was just in Kenya, but has now spread to other nations. Suspected witches are beaten and then set on fire. The scenes are gruesome. I won't post any videos here, but if you search YouTube for 'Christians burn witches in Kenya', a good number of hits will come up.

Villagers who accuse an elder family member of being a witch is a way of stealing their property and land from them.

In India, Christian missionaries attend Hindu cremation funerals, and shout epithets condemning their gods into the faces of the mourning families as they are leaving the gathering.

Opinion ? Any citations establishing this as fact ? Yes, accusation of witchcraft in Kenya are used by family's to steal elders property, but it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with the law.The majority of Africans are very superstitious and it can be illegal to practice witchcraft, it is tribal bad ju ju. Religion has little to do with this general superstition

 

[Poseidon Soter]

So which bits of Sharia are okay with you?

I don't see how that's relevant.

And as for "only applies in 'Muslim countries' ", two points:

1 - The phrase "Muslim country" is a pretty clear indication of a theocratic state, correct?

Not necessarily. It depends who's doing the labelling. A Muslim country can be one by virtue of having a majority Muslim population.

2 - That's not what half the Muslims in Europe think.

There's no telling whether European Muslims understand what Sharia actually is or would mean for them or whether they accept the whole shebang or not. And of course there are different understandings of what Sharia really is or ought to be too.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

How many large "grooming rings" are okay with you? I'm just curious to know what your tipping point is?

How does that relate to my point exactly?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

It is called an opinion based on experience, as yours is. There hasn't been a study that has polled all Christians, or even a reasonable number of them, on this matter, unless you know of one.

Right. My point exactly.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Like the big police scandal for covering up muslim rapes and other crimes

Yes, I agree it's shocking that some crimes haven't been properly investigated.

or the sharia courts approved by the Home Office

These have only very limited 'jurisdiction'.

the uniformed sharia compliance officers in sections of London.

Which parts of London?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Ah, you are a Brit different for you entirely. Christianity in your country is much more diluted and world friendly than here in the USA. Apples an oranges. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that Christianity is about dead there.

I don't know the stats for there, but here, according the census office, well over 80% identify as Christians.

I don't think Christianity is dead here, by any means. Perhaps fewer literalists than in the US. But Christianity takes many forms, as I'm sure you know.

 

[icehorse]

I don't see how that's relevant.

I'm not going to copy your own previous posts for you.

There's no telling whether European Muslims understand what Sharia actually is or would mean for them or whether they accept the whole shebang or not. And of course there are different understandings of what Sharia really is or ought to be too.

My default is to take people at their word.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

My default is to take people at their word.

Except when it's moderate Muslims, apparently.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I don't think Christianity is dead here, by any means. Perhaps fewer literalists than in the US. But Christianity takes many forms, as I'm sure you know.

No true Scotsman in 3...2...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, it only took one page for this thread to turn into garbage. Sad.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your idea about Christianity and islam being " not that much different on paper", with respect, belies your complete ignorance of either.

You're calling me ignorant? I'm not really interested in your judgments of me. Please keep them to yourself.

You claim authority and superiority here, but you have yet to demonstrate it. Your credentials in RF are your posts, not your claims of superiority.

But since you've opened that door, I feel unimpeded pointing out that your failure to see the similarities between these two religions reveals your ignorance of them. And I'll support that claim :

Spoiler: contrasting 2 religions

Christians and Muslims each revere a Semitic desert god, Yahweh and Allah, that is an angry, vengeful, jealous, judgmental, capricious, prudish, strongman that requires worship and submission.

Believers of both attend temples (Mosques or churches) and obey paternalistic, misogynisitic clergy.

Both religions embrace magical thinking, mythology, dogma, the supernatural, and ritual.

Each feature demons angels, prayer, an afterlife, a judgment, and a system of reward and punishment after death.

Each has its now centuries old holy book of internal contradictions, failed prophecies, and errors of history and science. I'm not as sure about the Qur'an, but it likely also contain vengeance, hatred, tribalism, violence, and failed morals that endorse slavery, rape, infanticide, and incest.

They each think they have the right to determine who should be allowed to have sex whom how, who should be able to marry whom, and what women must do regarding their bodies.

Both are patriarchal, authoritarian, misogynistic, sexually repressive, anhedonisitic, atheophobic, homophobic, antiscientiific, use psychological terrorism on their children, have violent histories featuring torture, genocide and terrorism, and demand obedience and submission.

Each consider faith a virtue and reason a problem.

Each has a history of opposing human rights and science.

Each advocates theocracy over democracy.

That's an incredible degree of similarity. As I argued earlier with no rebuttal, the major difference is that Christianity has been rendered in states governed by secular humanist values, especially secularism (church-state separation). That argument, unaddressed, still stands.

Murder is the illegal killing of another.

My definition was more correct. It is the deliberate, unlawful killing of a human being. Manslaughter is another form of unlawful killing of a human being.

Killing unborn baby's is murder.

What does that have to do with abortion? Abortion involves neither babies nor murder. It's the lawful killing of embryos and fetuses.

Sorry, but you'll need to leave the words babies and murder behind id you want to have a serious discussion. We're talking about abortion, which involves neither babies nor murder. If you need to shift to an appeal to emotion rather than factually defend why the church should control the uteri of women using the power of the state to do so, then I'd say that you have no argument.

What you knowingly or unknowingly fail to grasp is that the legality of abortion, the killing of an unborn baby has never been adjudicated.

The Supreme Court and the US for the last 45 years disagree.

Do you have an argument against reproductive rights for women, or one that supports turning them over to the state functioning as the agent of the church, that doesn't use the words baby or murder? Those are non-starters.

 

[icehorse]

Except when it's moderate Muslims, apparently.

Not at all. I really wish moderate Muslims would declare themselves to be reformed from their history and scripture. For example, I'm a HUGE fan of the Muslim Reform Movement.

But as it stands, the only evidence I have is the state of their countries, their scripture, their history, and large polls of their attitudes, and none of those are comforting.

 

[shmogie]

You're calling me ignorant? I'm not really interested in your judgments of me. Please keep them to yourself.

You claim authority and superiority here, but you have yet to demonstrate it. Your credentials in RF are your posts, not your claims of superiority.

But since you've opened that door, I feel unimpeded pointing out that your failure to see the similarities between these two religions reveals your ignorance of them. And I'll support that claim :

Spoiler: contrasting 2 religions

Christians and Muslims each revere a Semitic desert god, Yahweh and Allah, that is an angry, vengeful, jealous, judgmental, capricious, prudish, strongman that requires worship and submission.

Believers of both attend temples (Mosques or churches) and obey paternalistic, misogynisitic clergy.

Both religions embrace magical thinking, mythology, dogma, the supernatural, and ritual.

Each feature demons angels, prayer, an afterlife, a judgment, and a system of reward and punishment after death.

Each has its now centuries old holy book of internal contradictions, failed prophecies, and errors of history and science. I'm not as sure about the Qur'an, but it likely also contain vengeance, hatred, tribalism, violence, and failed morals that endorse slavery, rape, infanticide, and incest.

They each think they have the right to determine who should be allowed to have sex whom how, who should be able to marry whom, and what women must do regarding their bodies.

Both are patriarchal, authoritarian, misogynistic, sexually repressive, anhedonisitic, atheophobic, homophobic, antiscientiific, use psychological terrorism on their children, have violent histories featuring torture, genocide and terrorism, and demand obedience and submission.

Each consider faith a virtue and reason a problem.

Each has a history of opposing human rights and science.

Each advocates theocracy over democracy.

That's an incredible degree of similarity. As I argued earlier with no rebuttal, the major difference is that Christianity has been rendered in states governed by secular humanist values, especially secularism (church-state separation). That argument, unaddressed, still stands.

My definition was more correct. It is the deliberate, unlawful killing of a human being. Manslaughter is another form of unlawful killing of a human being.



What does that have to do with abortion? Abortion involves neither babies nor murder. It's the lawful killing of embryos and fetuses.

Sorry, but you'll need to leave the words babies and murder behind id you want to have a serious discussion. We're talking about abortion, which involves neither babies nor murder. If you need to shift to an appeal to emotion rather than factually defend why the church should control the uteri of women using the power of the state to do so, then I'd say that you have no argument.



The Supreme Court and the US for the last 45 years disagree.

Do you have an argument against reproductive rights for women, or one that supports turning them over to the state functioning as the agent of the church, that doesn't use the words baby or murder? Those are non-starters.

Ignorance simply means lack of knowledge. Your absurd statement regarding your comparison between Christianity and islam belies your ignorance. Prove your point if you can, don't pontificate. Lets compare the faith fundamentals verse by verse, sura by sura, if you choose.

Your logic is thus : If an unborn baby is murdered as the result of the murder of the mother, it is a person.

If it is murdered as the result of a conspiracy between a doctor and it's mother, it is not a person.Wonderful, Such mental gymnastics to justify killing an unborn human.

Have you read Roe v Wade ? I don't think so.

How can privacy have anything to do with the humanity of an unborn child ? If your discussions with your lawyer are shielded by privacy, does that defacto mean you aren't a person ? It is the EXACT same thing.

the humanity of an unborn child, or it's killing has never been addressed by the supreme court. The difference isn't that subtle are you simply choosing to ignore it ?

You don't like my terminology, tough, I don't like yours, but I am not whining about it, I ignore it.

You use your terms to obliterate the humanity of the unborn child, and to sanitize barbaric killing.

I use my terms to reinforce the humanity of the unborn child and to call it's killing what it is. Get over it.

I am all for reproductive rights, but I am not for genocide. Hitler convinced the German people that they would be better off without the Jews, so he made every effort to kill them all. Genocide.

Pro abortionists tell the individual they can choose to believe they will be better off without their child, so killing it is justified. Multiplied thousands of times every day, it is genocide.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad, that the primary abortion mills in the country, planned parenthood, was founded by Margaret Sanger, a huge believer in eugenics, just like Hitler. Her goal was to murder as many black baby's as possible, since they didn't meet the eugenic standard like white babies did.

Her organization is still fulfilling her vision.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

I'm not going to copy your own previous posts for you.

My default is to take people at their word.

I'm afraid you've lost me with your first point above.

Wrt the latter, it's not so much taking people at their word as how the questions in a poll are posed and what the respondents' understandings of the questions are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Mapped: The world's most (and least) free countries

Is freedom on the rise, or is it in Decline?

There is no doubt the United States has lost a fair amount of freedom the past few decades and has slipped in it's ratings as a free and open country.

Opinions?

I think a lot of things that Americans often think of as examples of freedom actually work against freedom.

Take "states' rights:" the way that every state has its own professional licensing regime (and sometimes different licensing qualifications from state to state for the same job), citizens' freedom of mobility and freedom to relocate within their country is diminished.

 

[icehorse]

I'm afraid you've lost me with your first point above.

Wrt the latter, it's not so much taking people at their word as how the questions in a poll are posed and what the respondents' understandings of the questions are.

What I think I understand you're claiming is that instead of taking Muslims at their word that they believe what their scripture tells them, we should second guess them.

That seems like an implausible way to go.