# Call to Prayer at Duke University



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

DURHAM, N.C. â A weekly call to prayer for Muslims will be heard at Duke University starting Friday, school officials said.


Read more at http://www.wral.com/muslim-call-to-prayer-to-sound-at-duke-university/14353003/#glZ7mQJTqQrSWoUM.99

Muslim call to prayer to sound at Duke University


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Forcing their religion on others.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

At here's the perspective from Duke. http://www.newsobserver.com/2015/01/14/4476409/at-duke-chapel-welcoming-muslims.html?sp=/99/108/


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

How many church bells are rang on any Sunday morning ''forcing'' people against there will, to go to church?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Wanda said:


> How many church bells are rang on any Sunday morning ''forcing'' people against there will, to go to church?


At Duke the bells from the same tower ring at least twice a day.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Private school. Private property. Their choice.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> At Duke the bells from the same tower ring at least twice a day.



The local Methodist church has bells at noon and 6 PM. Does that make them terrorist? Who is being ''forced'' at Duke by the call to prayer?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Wanda said:


> The local Methodist church has bells at noon and 6 PM. Does that make them terrorist? Who is being ''forced'' at Duke by the call to prayer?


Terrorists no, but if we follow the logic of the second poster those bells force their religion on others 14 times as much. That's gotta be bad, right?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Terrorists no, but if we follow the logic of the second poster those bells force their religion on others 14 times as much. That's gotta be bad, right?


The Muslim call to prayer includes âAllahu akbar,â which jihad murderers the world over scream as they kill infidels. - See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/01/mus...-brotherhood-group.html/#sthash.vDNjNQ7Z.dpuf


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Appeasement through accommodation. The same strategy that got France "no go" zones.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

My guess is some rich oil sheik made a sizable donation.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I thought one of the founding principles of this country was religous tolerance. There's been much discussion in another thread about how many Muslims are afraid to speak out in their own countries. Maybe just as we once welcomed others fleeing religous persecution and seeking a place to practice their religion as they wished, we might be better off welcoming moderate Muslims who just wish to practice their religion in peace and harmony with others. This describes the vast majority of Muslims I have met. Prostheltyzing seems to be a welcome and valued part of many Christian sects, but a call to prayer is somehow forceful or appeasing?


----------



## trulytricia (Oct 11, 2002)

If I were a woman in that school right now I would feel very, very threatened.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Appeasement through accommodation. The same strategy that got France "no go" zones.


Why does our Country have to follow all the failings of others? Do we have some kind of death wish? Libs Hate us so much and have to prove their big goverment ways will work-when they never have?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Terrorists no, but if we follow the logic of the second poster those bells force their religion on others 14 times as much. That's gotta be bad, right?


I had no idea bells had anything to "say". I'm not religious in the usual sense. I do have a farm bell, it has never spoke to me tho.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

HDRider said:


> My guess is some rich oil sheik made a sizable donation.


I also think it is a revenue related decision!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I thought one of the founding principles of this country was religous tolerance. There's been much discussion in another thread about how many Muslims are afraid to speak out in their own countries. Maybe just as we once welcomed others fleeing religous persecution and seeking a place to practice their religion as they wished, we might be better off welcoming moderate Muslims who just wish to practice their religion in peace and harmony with others. This describes the vast majority of Muslims I have met. Prostheltyzing seems to be a welcome and valued part of many Christian sects, but a call to prayer is somehow forceful or appeasing?


No, it was founded on the principle that government should not impose or restrict the free practice of religion. Since Duke is private, it should not suffer this restriction- unless of course the call to prayer becomes an instrument of intimidation and Duke gets government grants. And I expect that it will happen fairly fast. It will be interesting to see if a bunch of adolescent and easily offended and selfrighteous students can manage real accommodation. Somehow equating the ringing a church bells saying at most that the church is starting a service if someone wants to come but mostly is a convention for announcing time will end up the same as an announcement that there is only one god and it's time to rise up to pray to him and achieve salvation is questionable.
Too often Americans confuse manners with principles. Probably because we lack so much in the line of politeness ourselves, we tend to assume that polite means respect when it just means manners.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

7thswan said:


> I had no idea bells had anything to "say". I'm not religious in the usual sense. I do have a farm bell, it has never spoke to me tho.


Church bells have traditionally been used to call the faithful for prayer. In that sense they have as much to say as Muslim student using his voice to do the same. On my grandparents farm the bell spoke to call the folks working in the fields to meals. I went to a wonderful bell choir concert before the holidays. Those bells spoke loudly and softly to many there, including me.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

First off, it's *not* bells. "Members of the Duke Muslim Students Association will *chant the call*, known as adhan or azan, from the Duke Chapel bell tower each Friday at 1 p.m. The call to prayer will last about three minutes and be &#8220;moderately amplified,&#8221; officials said in a statement Tuesday."

This is what would be heard: [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eND38Ij-IpM[/ame] could you tune it out? 

Secondly, I think Duke is shooting themselves in the foot. Surely some parents will think twice about sending their kids there now.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

One time, once a week is reasonable. If this is a pretext to move to 5 times a day, 7 days a week, then all bets are off.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> One time, once a week is reasonable. If this is a pretext to move to 5 times a day, 7 days a week, then all bets are off.


Great give em a inch they will take a mile .Some sure don't learn history very well :facepalm:


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

I agree Jim. I see it happening, a slow infiltration. Not all of you have the large Muslim population we have. It may not be happening in your towns. But it will. Trust me.

Anyway. Here's Duke's FB page and there are already some comments regarding this story. I don't have a facebook account so I'm not sure if there's areas I can't access. But I see from the comments that people aren't happy.

https://www.facebook.com/DukeUniv


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

2dogs-mom said:


> I agree Jim. I see it happening, a slow infiltration. Not all of you have the large Muslim population we have. It may not be happening in your towns. But it will. Trust me.
> 
> Anyway. Here's Duke's FB page and there are already some comments regarding this story. I don't have a facebook account so I'm not sure if there's areas I can't access. But I see from the comments that people aren't happy.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/DukeUniv


Yep Americans have never had a long range plan and can't accept that any group could be on the same plan for a thousand years .:hammer:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I also think it is a revenue related decision!


Frankly, as funding has been reduced from states and federal sources, academia has looked to high paying foreign students to make up the difference. It is extremely prevalent in California where there is a push for supported education for minoritiesand poorer students. Since profs enjoy rich benefits, salaries and security, they balance out the freebies with the high paying out of staters (illegals are not out of staters) rather than suffer the drop in living standards that the rest of the country has faced.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

> *Duke University* has reversed itself, and *announced Thursday afternoon it will not allow a Muslim call to prayer Friday* from its iconic cathedral.
> The decision had met with widespread controversy.
> âDuke remains committed to fostering an inclusive, tolerant and welcoming campus for all of its students,â said Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for public affairs and government relations. âHowever, it was clear that what was conceived as an effort to unify was not having the intended effect.â


http://www.charlotteobserver.com/20...klin-graham-slams-duke-over.html#.VLgpbYrF8ex


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

So this whole thread is moot. I am glad they game to their senses. It sure was not fair and balanced as things should be. Good for them.


----------



## trulytricia (Oct 11, 2002)

Seriously? Would sure like to hear about what changed their mind.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

trulytricia said:


> Seriously? Would sure like to hear about what changed their mind.


Yes..


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

trulytricia said:


> Seriously? Would sure like to hear about what changed their mind.


 Money :thumb: http://www.wral.com/duke-reverses-plan-to-allow-islamic-call-to-prayer-from-campus-chapel/14359650/


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Money :thumb: http://www.wral.com/duke-reverses-plan-to-allow-islamic-call-to-prayer-from-campus-chapel/14359650/


Noticed that was tucked at the very, very end of the article. Up to that point is was all sunshine and diversity. Dang those dirty realists anyway. It was such a lovely fantasy.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I suspect the people most offended by the prospect of the bells tolling the Muslim calls-to-prayer also would be the most offended if the bells STOPPED issuing Christian calls-to-prayer.


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

So money trumps idealism at Duke!?!?!?!?

Who would have thought that?

What a bunch of hypocrites!!!

TRellis


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Balcony it was not because of money
Schoenfeld said the school received negative feedback from the university community, including alumni, upon announcing the amplification plans.

*That criticism, along with safety concerns, prompted the reversal*, he said.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I have no problem with the call to prayer. I just hope that Christian students have the same opportunity to publicly address from the same tower the good news of the Gospel.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Balcony it was not because of money
> Schoenfeld said the school received negative feedback from the university community, including alumni, upon announcing the amplification plans.
> 
> *That criticism, along with safety concerns, prompted the reversal*, he said.


Whose baloney :hammer: Always follow the money !

Mainuddin, who is Muslim, said Duke had to consider the effect of its decisions on fundraising.

"Itâs a private university, so the pressure will be stronger than a public university," he said.


Read more at http://www.wral.com/duke-reverses-p...m-campus-chapel/14359650/#9TpzZrE3IjFk1IJA.99


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> I suspect the people most offended by the prospect of the bells tolling the Muslim calls-to-prayer also would be the most offended if the bells STOPPED issuing Christian calls-to-prayer.


Duke, founded by Christians why should they be offended? Let the Muslims start their own university, and see if they have Christian services.


Absurd


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

There go those violent Christians again issuing a "credible and serious security threat". I don't buy that security threat! It was a financial funds stoppage threat.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wanda said:


> How many church bells are rang on any Sunday morning ''forcing'' people against there will, to go to church?


How many Christian religions are killing people by the thousands all over the world? How many bells offend folks?
You do know that Duke reconsidered...the 'end' they wanted did not turn out. 
Imagine that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I thought one of the founding principles of this country was religous tolerance. There's been much discussion in another thread about how many Muslims are afraid to speak out in their own countries. Maybe just as we once welcomed others fleeing religous persecution and seeking a place to practice their religion as they wished, we might be better off welcoming moderate Muslims who just wish to practice their religion in peace and harmony with others. This describes the vast majority of Muslims I have met. Prostheltyzing seems to be a welcome and valued part of many Christian sects, but a call to prayer is somehow forceful or appeasing?


I'm pretty sure we already do this...and its risky, but I think its right to give asylum. We have over 20 'cells'/'camps' here already that supposedly we're monitoring-they 'train' & have ak 47s, etc. My hope is that as those cells get too over the top, we'll shut'em down & deport. (If I were in charge, I'd deport all of those.) Don't see that happening w/this administration, tho, they're not willing to admit Islamists are doing this.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> One time, once a week is reasonable. If this is a pretext to move to 5 times a day, 7 days a week, then all bets are off.


I don't agree. I think especially at this time, even 1X/wk is offensive.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

trulytricia said:


> Seriously? Would sure like to hear about what changed their mind.


Pretty easy to figure out. Prolly "HUNDREDS" of wealthy folks who send their kids there or had planned to, said, "Not any more!".


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Balcony it was not because of money
> Schoenfeld said the school received negative feedback from the university community, including alumni, upon announcing the amplification plans.
> 
> *That criticism, along with safety concerns, prompted the reversal*, he said.


From the article that S.Jim posted:
The decision caused a national furor, with Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Rev. Billy Graham and the head of the international relief organization Samaritan's Purse, posting on his Facebook page that followers of Islam are "butchering" people who don't share their beliefs and urging Duke alumni and supporters to withhold donations.

In a Thursday interview with WRAL News, Graham refused to back down, even for those Muslims who have condemned radical Islamic actions.

"I don't feel I owe an apology to anybody. I think Duke University, they owe an apology," he said. "They're the ones who owe the apology to Christian students and the ones who donated money for the chapel."


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I'm glad to hear the female students at Duke are now safe and the bell tower won't be used as a minaret and no one will be offended by a call to prayer. Of course, the 700 or so Muslims still roam freely on the campus, the chapel basement will still be used as a mosque on a weekly basis and the call to prayer might still be offensive to those who walk past on a Friday afternoon.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'm glad to hear the female students at Duke are now safe and the bell tower won't be used as a minaret and no one will be offended by a call to prayer. Of course, the 700 or so Muslims still roam freely on the campus, the chapel basement will still be used as a mosque on a weekly basis and the call to prayer might still be offensive to those who walk past on a Friday afternoon.


Well, you won't be sorry when we are NOT a 3rd world country like Obama wants.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> I suspect the people most offended by the prospect of the bells tolling the Muslim calls-to-prayer also would be the most offended if the bells STOPPED issuing Christian calls-to-prayer.


Again, not BELLS. Please see my post #19.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I suspect the people most offended by the prospect of the bells tolling the Muslim calls-to-prayer also would be the most offended if the bells STOPPED issuing Christian calls-to-prayer.


Reading the article shows that it was not 'tolling bells' but the loudspeaker call to prayer, which announces it's time to pray to the one true God and thereby earn salvation. It would be more like a fundamentalist announcing over the loudspeaker that its time to pray to Christ for salvation. Something, having looked at your previous remarks, you would find offensive? 
Beside tolling bells is such long standing practice in the west as to have lost it's religious context for most Americans. I imagine the only ones choosing to see religious bias in it are the Muslim students wanting to use the church for their own version of religious expression.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Their call to prayer is a long long chant it shows those repeating it are in agreement that Allah is the one and only true God .

http://islam.about.com/cs/prayer/f/adhan_english.htm


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I can't listen to that nonsense, all I can think of is a miserable Woman wailing..


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

7thswan said:


> I can't listen to that nonsense, all I can think of is a miserable Woman wailing..


Ever hear a pig caught under a gate :thumb:


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

What? You don't find it to be "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset?(or something like that).


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Having put my hands over my ears to rush past the bells and into church many times as a child, it is not the quality of the sound that bothers me. Luckily really loud church bells are too expensive for most churches these days and a toned down recorded bell is the best most churches have, if that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Can y'all imagine if they had someone reading 'Levitcus' about gays once a week?

(sorry, I don't know the ch. & verse)


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

I thought it did sound kind of pretty, in a haunting sort of way. But I also kind of like the local church bells which play hymns 3X/day, noon, 3:00 and 6:00 and 4X on Sunday. I'm not offended by either one.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

where I want to said:


> No, it was founded on the principle that government should not impose or restrict the free practice of religion. Since Duke is private, it should not suffer this restriction- unless of course the call to prayer becomes an instrument of intimidation and Duke gets government grants.


http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2012/04/05/duke-climbs-us-research-rankings#.VLsJ9yyaV5M


> Duke is building upon its elite standing as a research institution despite the shrinking pool for federal research funding.





> Of Dukeâs $983 million in expenditures, $514 million came from the federal government and $113 million was funded internally by the University, according to the National Science Foundation report. The University received the 13th-most federal funding for research in fiscal year 2010.


http://today.duke.edu/2010/10/milestone200.html


> Duke University researchers recently hit an important milestone in total funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The federal grants for academic research and development are intended to create long-term health benefits and economic opportunity.
> Through the end of September, Duke has won 360 competitive grants for research and construction totaling $202 million from seven federal agencies. More than 80 percent of the funding has come from the National Institutes of Health. Duke's Schools of Medicine and Nursing account for $166.3 million of the total received.


So, does this justify calls for separation of church and state?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

2dogs-mom said:


> Again, not BELLS. Please see my post #19.


I stand corrected, but in any case it's rather beside the point -- the point being that those most eager to suppress the Muslim religion likely would be the most up-in-arms if their own religious display were to be forbidden. No?

And, from an outsider's perspective, it seems Christianity is in danger of winning the battle but losing the war. Yes, you succeeded in getting the Muslim call-to-prayer broadcast stopped, but do you think you won any hearts and minds along the way? Or did you just make your religion look mean and petty to outsiders?

I tell ya, ordinary everyday Christians do a better job of turning off people to their religion than Richard Dawkins or other "celebrity atheists" ever will. ound:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I stand corrected, but in any case it's rather beside the point -- the point being that those most eager to suppress the Muslim religion likely would be the most up-in-arms if their own religious display were to be forbidden. No?
> 
> And, from an outsider's perspective, it seems Christianity is in danger of winning the battle but losing the war. Yes, you succeeded in getting the Muslim call-to-prayer broadcast stopped, but do you think you won any hearts and minds along the way? Or did you just make your religion look mean and petty to outsiders?
> 
> I tell ya, ordinary everyday Christians do a better job of turning off people to their religion than Richard Dawkins or other "celebrity atheists" ever will. ound:



If you are not a religious person yourself, why does it matter to you what turf war two religions have? You are not in any position to participate in favoring one over another nor to complain about how they conduct their business when you have already chosen to be seperate from them. 

So where does the vitriol about Christianity but not Islam come from?


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

where I want to said:


> If you are not a religious person yourself, why does it matter to you what turf war two religions have? You are not in any position to participate in favoring one over another nor to complain about how they conduct their business when you have already chosen to be seperate from them.
> 
> So where does the vitriol about Christianity but not Islam come from?


I think Jesus had that same vitriol against the church-goers that were full of hypocrisy. Claim to be all full of love and peace, but keep promoting hatred.

Let's agree that Muslims are evil. Christ taught to love your enemies, yet most Christians I know hate Muslims. So is Jesus wrong? Should we hate them? Are you only supposed to love those who are lovable?

Jesus taught that "blessed are the peacemakers." Was he wrong again? Many Christians can't get enough of war.

As I've stated elsewhere, I don't see religion as having a great deal of effect on people. Most Christians ignore the teachings of Jesus and love war, and love to hate Muslims.

Islam teaches to kill the unbelievers, yet most Muslims ignore that, and are decent people anyway. You have crazies in every population, regardless of religion.

I keep hearing that all the Muslims are jihadists out to get us. They are sure doing a poor job. Millions of Muslims in this country, and have any of you been attacked? Many here are afraid of jihadists, but have you ever seen one? I haven't. I'm always looking for them, but haven't seen one yet. There are regular murders in the local city, but haven't heard of one of them being a jihadist. Had a nutcase go on a shooting rampage in Moscow Idaho down the road last week. Went around town killing three different people. Was not a Muslim.

If muslims are so crazy and evil, why do we go half way around the world to mess with them. We installed dictators, invaded, bombed and attacked their countries long before they attacked us on 9/11.

Anyway, we always have to have an enemy.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I'm sorry, but if the Christains YOU know all hate muslims, you sure don't know any that I do.
Where-please quote it-does anyone here say they HATE muslims? I believe we're pretty much ALL against ISIS, alqueada, bobo whoever's group in nigeria...etc w/the initialed sects who are killing everyone. Did you see this pic Aragian Knight posted from Nigeria? No there's real hate. Yet I don't recall anyone here saying HATE! We loath what they have done...given the chance betcha any of us woulda shot that bunch dead if we could prevented that horror. But-we're all taught/learned not to hate our enemies.
Like someone said in the thread about the terrorist funeral-not so good to revel in another's death.

Here's the pic...open the thread & scroll to #18. Hope you don't mind, AK.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...ort-insulate-obama-criticism-falls-apart.html


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

We don't hate Muslims, only the Muslins that KILL US, and others around the world. You know the BAD ONES. Heck the Doctor that saved my life by getting me to go to the ER a few years back was a Muslin.~! If she would have not done so or hated Christians I would not be here today.
Or on the other hand if I didn't like Muslins, or trust Muslins, I wouldn't have gone to see her. And well I would now be pushing up daisies.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Offering the benefits of doubt, maybe some use hyperbole to make a point. Then again, maybe they simply stupid comments.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> I stand corrected, but in any case it's rather beside the point -- the point being that *those most eager to suppress the Muslim religion* likely would be the most up-in-arms if their own religious display were to be forbidden. No?
> 
> And, from an outsider's perspective, it seems Christianity is in danger of winning the battle but losing the war. Yes, you succeeded in getting the Muslim call-to-prayer broadcast stopped, but do you think you won any hearts and minds along the way? Or did you just make your religion look mean and petty to outsiders?
> 
> I tell ya, ordinary everyday Christians do a better job of turning off people to their religion than Richard Dawkins or other "celebrity atheists" ever will. ound:


It is not suppression, it is nothing more than resisting acquiescence to the more radical form of Islam and its creeping progress into all our lives, of which you only seem to do aiming at Christians.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

where I want to said:


> If you are not a religious person yourself, why does it matter to you what turf war two religions have? You are not in any position to participate in favoring one over another nor to complain about how they conduct their business when you have already chosen to be seperate from them.
> 
> So where does the vitriol about Christianity but not Islam come from?


I actually dislike Islam even more than I do Christianity, but I'm very fond of justice, and it seems fairness would dictate that if we allow one religious display, we ought to allow all. No? 

For members of the dominant religion to shut out all competitors seems petty and small-minded, and doesn't cast that religion in an attractive light. 

As I said earlier, run-of-the-mill Christians probably do a better job of making atheists than do all of the proselytizing atheists! (Note: nowhere did I say this was a _bad_ thing.)


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

HDRider said:


> It is not suppression, it is nothing more than resisting acquiescence to the more radical form of Islam and its creeping progress into all our lives, of which you only seem to do aiming at Christians.


 After reading what some on here havin posted by am I ever glad I am a Christian Some sure have a problem with the majority that is in the country and what this country was founded on. Wow I just can't believe some are still living in the dark ages like this, much less living in America.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I actually dislike Islam even more than I do Christianity, but I'm very fond of justice, and it seems fairness would dictate that if we allow one religious display, we ought to allow all. No?
> 
> For members of the dominant religion to shut out all competitors seems petty and small-minded, and doesn't cast that religion in an attractive light.
> 
> As I said earlier, run-of-the-mill Christians probably do a better job of making atheists than do all of the proselytizing atheists! (Note: nowhere did I say this was a _bad_ thing.)


No. Neither Duke nor any Christian church is obligated to provide space for the religious activities of another group. By your philosophy, every mosque would be required to provide space for Christian services and even you could see how far that would fly.
What Duke was attempted to do was make nice with the Muslim students without asking its populace what they thought about being railroaded into it. So, having not asked if they had the right to speak for everyone from their ivory tower self righteousness, they were surprised that to find that people did object. 

I would think that, if you really did disliked Islam, justice would cause a restraint in accusations about how awful it is for Christians to find objection to Islamic practices.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

where I want to said:


> I would think that, if you really did disliked Islam, justice would cause a restraint in accusations about how awful it is for Christians to find objection to Islamic practices.


Unlike the Pope, I'm an American and a big believer in free speech, so I see no harm in religions bad-mouthing one another. Sticks and stones, etc. 

I agree that Duke put itself in a bad spot, first by taking a controversial action without considering the possible repercussions, and then by reversing its position, which makes it look spineless. 

This is a perfect illustration of the slippery slope entities face where religion in concerned: Allow one to get its foot in the door, and it creates a public relations nightmare if you then attempt to shut others out. Best to keep religion out of the picture entirely!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> Unlike the Pope, I'm an American and a big believer in free speech, so I see no harm in religions bad-mouthing one another. Sticks and stones, etc.
> 
> I agree that Duke put itself in a bad spot, first by taking a controversial action without considering the possible repercussions, and then by reversing its position, which makes it look spineless.
> 
> This is a perfect illustration of the slippery slope entities face where religion in concerned: Allow one to get its foot in the door, and it creates a public relations nightmare if you then attempt to shut others out. Best to *keep religion out of the picture entirely!*


Having to repeat myself to you and only because you exclaimed so,, Duke was founded by Christians.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Having to repeat myself to you and only because you exclaimed so,, Duke was founded by Christians.


Quakers and Methodists. Washington Duke was a Methodist, recruited to endow Duke by a Methodist minister. It's motto is Knowledge and Religion.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Having to repeat myself to you and only because you exclaimed so,, Duke was founded by Christians.



And that is relevant ... how? Seeing that it apparently welcomes people of other faiths, and reportedly has a sizable Muslim student population?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> And that is relevant ... how? Seeing that it apparently welcomes people of other faiths, and reportedly has a sizable Muslim student population?


Finally something that at least is a consideration. Although less than 5% of the student body is muslim and that is not sizable.

This is not an issue of making a group feel unwelcome as they have free practice of their religion anyway but of accommodating their public religious expression in a way that both uses the facilities of another religion and is public enough to include others who might wish not to be included. It is insistence on a right to make everyone else listen too. 

It also uses the facilities that have a history of being created and used for another religion. 
I suppose if the bell tower had been used historically for broadcasting Christian sermons then there might be a case for including other religions' messages. But there is not. The fact that there are bells is simply part of 2000 years of history with almost no religious message any longer, and, even if it could be assumed to be one, it is one that, if a bunch of Christians suddenly decided to initiate bell ringing in celebration of their religion, would hardly be allowed to be started today. 

And it is pretty pushy to expect what would be denied other groups should be allowed for this group, just because they want it. It is disrespectful of history and tradition and pretty aggressive. Unless Duke of course allows every group to shout their message from the tower too.

One thing I do find illogical is that you should advocate for this group when you surely would protest at the equivalent message from a fundamentalist Christian group being broadcast as an infringement of your rights to be religion free.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> And that is relevant ... how? Seeing that it apparently welcomes people of other faiths, and reportedly has a sizable Muslim student population?


dot dot dot


----------



## deb_rn (Apr 16, 2010)

Just imagine the horror when "THE TRUMPET" sounds....and you know you have to stand in JUDGEMENT. That sound will probably haunt you for eternity! We all get to live forever..... the accommodations will be better for some than others! I'm blessed to know where my forever will be spent!

Debbie


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Deb, I'm planning on taking the dirt nap, myself. 



> Finally something that at least is a consideration. Although less than 5% of the student body is muslim and that is not sizable.


I believe the figure quoted was 700 Muslim students, which seemed like a significant number to me. Your mileage may vary. 



> This is not an issue of making a group feel unwelcome as they have free practice of their religion anyway but of accommodating their public religious expression in a way that both uses the facilities of another religion and is public enough to include others who might wish not to be included. It is insistence on a right to make everyone else listen too.


I'm not familiar with this story beyond the links posted in this thread; was this something the Muslim student population "insisted" upon? It rather sounded as if the school took it upon itself to offer to broadcast the Muslim prayers, then rescinded the offer when it took some flack from alumni. Is there more to the story than that? Do tell.



> And it is pretty pushy to expect what would be denied other groups should be allowed for this group, just because they want it.


Have other groups been denied, though?
And DID the Muslim students campaign (aggressively?) for the privilege of broadcasting their prayers?



> Unless Duke of course allows every group to shout their message from the tower too.





> One thing I do find illogical is that you should advocate for this group when you surely would protest at the equivalent message from a fundamentalist Christian group being broadcast as an infringement of your rights to be religion free.


Actually, I'm quite a fan of free speech and of the marketplace of ideas. And a university is, of course, the very definition of the latter. So why not give equal time to everyone? Or, alternately, the school could embrace a single faith and close its ranks to nonbelievers. No surprises that way! And that is perhaps more ethical than what Duke is doing, which is to tell Muslims that when it comes to enrollment, their money is as green as anyone else's, but don't expect us to put Islam on par with Christianity. (The alumni wouldn't like it!) :teehee:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Equal time?
Hmmm can you tell us if Duke U rings bells on Sunday for Christian goers?
If Not then it is NOT Equal Time to give in to a scant few.~!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

willow...... would it be a mockery to have the gay pride parade accept an anti homosexual message float.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

OK, here is my opinion:

A parade that bills itself as a "gay pride" parade ought to be able to keep out anything that contradicts with its message, just as a Christian university ought to be able to turn away students who don't profess to be Christians. 

But if a parade is just a parade, open to all comers, it shouldn't keep out the anti-gay float even if some organizers disagree with its message. And if a university opens itself to students of all faith traditions, it ought to accommodate them all equally, or, perhaps, accommodate none, and let students have their religious needs met by the off-campus organization of their choice. 

Endorsing some religions but not others is a sticky position to be in, as our government's founders evidently realized when they gave us the First Amendment.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> No. Neither Duke nor any Christian church is obligated to provide space for the religious activities of another group. By your philosophy, every mosque would be required to provide space for Christian services and even you could see how far that would fly.
> What Duke was attempted to do was make nice with the Muslim students without asking its populace what they thought about being railroaded into it. So, having not asked if they had the right to speak for everyone from their ivory tower self righteousness, they were surprised that to find that people did object.
> 
> I would think that, if you really did disliked Islam, justice would cause a restraint in accusations about how awful it is for Christians to find objection to Islamic practices.


Post of the week award.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I went to a Catholic private school. With a cathedral and nuns in black habits.
Had a classmate who also kept his wit. He was a great singer and did tour national.

Our cathedral was built for music. He often performed in the cathedral but one gig he bailed on us.

When questioned by the priest as to why.


All he said was

As the token Jew sometimes I take a look at a former Jew on the cross in the cathedral and nervous. We all laughed as we knew he was joking.


And think about this

Religious schools are educational businesses.....the cake maker are food business....
WG.....

Why can an educational business refuse customers. But a food business can't


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

WG think about this I open a pizza place and gluten free folk come in I'm I required to solve their diet issues so they feel comfortable.

I have eated more salads at fish joints because I know when I accept going out with folks visiting here the salmon bq joint is going to be the pick. As a person who wears big girl pants, I eat ahead of going out and enjoy the evening with out a fuss.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> OK, here is my opinion:
> 
> A parade that bills itself as a "gay pride" parade ought to be able to keep out anything that contradicts with its message, just as a Christian university ought to be able to turn away students who don't profess to be Christians.
> 
> ...


That rings of expecting everyone to accommodate everyone on everything. Which if some want to reserve the church tower use as it is, limited and free of words, and some want a Christian church not to advertise other religion's messages and others want to use the church for their own announcements then it is simply impossible to make everyone equal. Someone gets the short end of the stick.
You seem to feel that those who want a no change to get the short end, along with other religions not granted such access for announcements and those who want not to be lectured from the church tower by anyone. 
So how can it be for everyone else's desires be ignored yet not this particular group without being totally aribtrary? To look at the original purpose of the tower and not expand it without good cause. If these muslim students aren't allowed this, they do not suffer even being singled out as no one has the right to announce any words from the tower now.
I suppose it might be less of an issue if they simply asked to have the bell rung at their own ceremonial times but they want more than that. And call tge university cowards for not bending to their desires.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> WG.....
> 
> Why can an educational business refuse customers. But a food business can't


Because we have a very ugly history of racial segregation in this country that makes some people uncomfortable when others refuse to serve a particular segment of the population. It hearkens back to the days of Jim Crow, whites-only restrooms and the like. 

Personally, I tend to think it's a free country and private individuals ought to be able to do business with whomever they please. At the end of the day, I think the market can be trusted to take care of any problems. It's usually pretty good at that sort of thing. 

But all that is rather beside the point in the current case, as (so far as I know) no one is suggesting that Muslim students should be excluded from the university; merely that their calls-to-prayers shouldn't be broadcast on campus. 



> I suppose it might be less of an issue if they simply asked to have the bell rung at their own ceremonial times but they want more than that.


Were the Muslims students aggressively campaigning for this change, though? I'm not aware of the backstory on this issue. It sounds to me like some chaplain or other faculty or administrative person came up with the bright idea that "We ought to be more inclusive!" And then had it backfire horribly on them. :hysterical:



> WG think about this I open a pizza place and gluten free folk come in I'm I required to solve their diet issues so they feel comfortable.


Well, if you want their business, it might behoove you to cater to their preferences! 

OTOH, if you're indifferent, or even actively hostile to those sorts -- maybe they're picky eaters who tend to ask 10,000 questions, send their food back to the kitchen and then leave a lousy tip -- by all means, fail to accommodate them. Problem solved!


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Most of the Founders would shake their heads at the linguistic gymnastics we use, to tie knots out of simple words and plain meanings.

America is a Christian nation. No, not a theocracy, but the vast majority of citizens are Christian. That means little things, like the celebration of Christmas with a creche on a public square or a national holiday on Good Friday.

That doesn't mean we impinge upon other's beliefs or make them worship a certain God or a certain way. They are free to worship whatever and however they choose, as long as it doesn't cause harm to their fellow citizens.

It seems like too many people belong to a new church nowadays - The Church of the Perpetually Offended.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Jolly, we also have a long tradition of preventing the minority from being trampled by the majority. 

But let's go with your viewpoint for a moment, for the sake of argument. I believe Dearborn, MI, is very close to having a majority Muslim population. (A quick Google search turned up the figure "46 percent.") If Muslims do, in fact, become a majority there, would you be OK with an Islamic display on the courthouse lawn, and a plaque citing Sharia law in the courtroom? Should children get Eid off but go to school on Christmas? Would that "perpetually offend" you, or would you say it's fine, since they are, after all, the majority?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> Jolly, we also have a long tradition of preventing the minority from being trampled by the majority.
> 
> But let's go with your viewpoint for a moment, for the sake of argument. I believe Dearborn, MI, is very close to having a majority Muslim population. (A quick Google search turned up the figure "46 percent.") If Muslims do, in fact, become a majority there, would you be OK with an Islamic display on the courthouse lawn, and a plaque citing Sharia law in the courtroom? Should children get Eid off but go to school on Christmas? Would that "perpetually offend" you, or would you say it's fine, since they are, after all, the majority?


That's the majority of one area and not the nation.

But pursuing that line of thinking, most towns have little unique pageants, etc. associated with a town. Sharia law is hyperbole, since it goes against the laws of the state and the federal government, but one could certainly understand some type of Muslim display or festival, if the town is majority Muslim.

Lastly, I submit we do have a long tradition of the majority melding the minority into more of its likeness. It's called the Melting Pot, and has worked quite well since the beginning of the country.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

In actuality, there are already communities strictly regulated by religious rules. There are places run by orthodox jews that supply their own rigorously segregated facilities by sex. A large number of its residents get government subsidies as individuals while the town avoids Federal or State sanctions by not taking any public money. There are plenty of Christian enclaves run similarly as I suspect there are Muslim ones.
But try to live there as a non-compliant person. You will find yourself unwelcome and will have no access to normal town services as they are private to coreligionists only to avoid regulation.
And why anyone would think this is healthy for the country to increase divisions, I don't know. But it is done now. And it does not increase individual freedoms to allow a group to assert primacy to practice their religious views over the right of the individual not to be controlled by it.
And that is what the local Relgious Council did by allowing announced calls to prayer for one group because it suited their traditions. They allowed that group to assert its religious rights in such a public way that it mechanically intrudes into the spaces of non affiliated people.

There is a confusion as to who exactly is being strong armed religiously. There is a fuzzy feel good idea that because Islam is not the dominate relgion, and they are not universally loved, that it should be accommodated as if it was so every one is "equal." But what has really been imposed because of the public nature if the broadcast call to prayer, is that every individual not wishing to be part of it is forced willy nilly into listening anyway. And that is the imposition of religious strong arming, not the restriction against it.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> But pursuing that line of thinking, most towns have little unique pageants, etc. associated with a town. Sharia law is hyperbole, since it goes against the laws of the state and the federal government,


The same could be said about Biblical rules, but many see no problem with a "Ten Commandments" plaque in the courtroom.

Tell me, if you -- as a practicing Christian -- walked into a courtroom and saw a plaque on the wall outlining the precepts of Sharia law, would you feel confident of being treated fairly in that forum? I mean, no problem, right?


> Lastly, I submit we do have a long tradition of the majority melding the minority into more of its likeness. It's called the Melting Pot, and has worked quite well since the beginning of the country.


The "melting pot" has always been optional, not compulsory, though, and if you study a bit of history, you'll see that first-generation Americans usually aren't terribly eager to "melt." Historically, many neglected to learn English, and a surprising percentage eventually returned to their home countries. It's the second generation that usually assimilates. 

But applying your "majority rules" precept to the subject of religion -- polls are finding that with each passing decade, fewer Americans are identifying as Christians. Should the number slip below 50 percent, with the majority being religiously unaffiliated, do you agree that Christians should gracefully give up their faith in order to meld seamlessly with the rest?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> The same could be said about Biblical rules, but many see no problem with a "Ten Commandments" plaque in the courtroom.
> 
> 
> But applying your "majority rules" precept to the subject of religion -- polls are finding that with each passing decade, fewer Americans are identifying as Christians. Should the number slip below 50 percent, with the majority being religiously unaffiliated, do you agree that Christians should gracefully give up their faith in order to meld seamlessly with the rest?


No one but you said anything about giving up their religion. You express that the majority should self suppress their religion so the minority can fully express their's. You don't find that to be a conflict? That the majority may not keep their practices in order that the minority can?
In this use of the tower thing, you object to the usual solution for these issues- that no one gets to inflict their religion's practices on the public. You favor instead, inflicting Muslim words just because there is an ancient custom here of ringing bells. It would be more to your previous holding that the tower should be silent than one or another religion be selected out of the many to have the opportunity to proselytize at the expense of the others.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I would feel a heck f alot safer with a darn cross to boot over a any faith that is truly at war with women.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You express that the majority should self suppress their religion so the minority can fully express their's. You don't find that to be a conflict? That the majority may not keep their practices in order that the minority can?


For the record, I believe individuals should be able to do as they please on private property. A church ought to be able to display whatever it wants on its lawn! The same goes for a private homeowner or business.

IMO, government facilities ought to remain religiously neutral, in order to avoid the appearance of bias.

Some jurisdictions attempt to solve the problem another way, by letting any group who wishes to participate put up a monument, but this can lead to some silliness. it is probably more productive to simply take the issue off the table altogether.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> The same could be said about Biblical rules, but many see no problem with a "Ten Commandments" plaque in the courtroom.
> 
> Tell me, if you -- as a practicing Christian -- walked into a courtroom and saw a plaque *on the wall outlining the precepts of Sharia law, would you feel confident of being treated fairly in that forum*? I mean, no problem, right?
> 
> ...


You imply you fear Christian laws more than Sharia law. How many homosexuals have Christians killed lately.


Your parallels just do not work.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> Jolly, we also have a long tradition of preventing the minority from being trampled by the majority.
> 
> But let's go with your viewpoint for a moment, for the sake of argument. I believe Dearborn, MI, is very close to having a majority Muslim population. (A quick Google search turned up the figure "46 percent.") If Muslims do, in fact, become a majority there, would you be OK with an Islamic display on the courthouse lawn, and a plaque citing Sharia law in the courtroom? Should children get Eid off but go to school on Christmas? Would that "perpetually offend" you, or would you say it's fine, since they are, after all, the majority?


Dearborn is still part of America.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

HDRider said:


> You imply you fear Christian laws more than Sharia law. How many homosexuals have Christians killed lately.
> 
> 
> Your parallels just do not work.


I notice you didn't answer the question. :hysterical:

And yes, I do fear Christians _in this country _more than I do Muslims. Christians are an exponentially larger and more politically-active group (again, _in this country_). I have never heard of a Muslim group organizing to try to restrict my reproductive freedom or campaign against same-sex marriage. I'm not saying they're not out there; just that I haven't seen any. For that matter, I'm not aware of any Muslims who have killed gay people _in this country_. 

In other places around the globe, Muslims may pose a much greater threat, but here in the U.S.? Not so much, at the moment. 



> Dearborn is still part of America.


You're dodging the question. If your argument is that the majority should rule, and should be able to impose its beliefs on others, are you willing to cede, and to accept other beliefs being imposed upon you, if at some point your group is no longer the majority?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> I notice you didn't answer the question. :hysterical:
> 
> And yes, I do fear Christians _in this country _more than I do Muslims. Christians are an exponentially larger and more politically-active group (again, _in this country_). I have never heard of a Muslim group organizing to try to restrict my reproductive freedom or campaign against same-sex marriage. I'm not saying they're not out there; just that I haven't seen any. For that matter, I'm not aware of any Muslims who have killed gay people _in this country_.
> 
> ...


To answer your question, I am for American cultural mores, where you look to modify them.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Ahh, but which "American cultural mores"? You do realize this country was once occupied entirely by the people we now refer to as "Native Americans," right? Should their cultural mores prevail? After all, they were here first! 

I presume that you mean "American cultural mores" at this particular point in time. But again I would ask, why now? Why 2015? Are we somehow socially and culturally superior to, say, 1880 or 1950? (The phenomenon known as "twerking" would suggest otherwise.) 

But OK, let's go with your idea for a moment: "American cultural mores," circa 2015, are the height of civilization and ought to be preserved in perpetuity. Whew; that's settled! Or maybe not so much. America is, after all, a very diverse place. So, should we preserve the "American cultural mores" of an Asian-American "tiger mom," African-American rapper Lil Wayne, Caucasian Sen. Elizabeth Warren, or a Hispanic-American girl preparing for her quinceanera? Probably all would have slightly different "cultural mores," yet they're all part of America, as are you and I. 

I have no particular interest in "modifying" cultural mores; however, I'm willing to acknowledge that they vary in time and place, and are in a continual state of flux. And I don't see that as automatically bad. There was a time, after all, when immigrants of my ethnic extraction were (according to the "American cultural mores" of the day) considered mentally substandard and fit to do only the work of a common laborer. Today we are pretty indistinguishable from the general population. Some have even gone so far as to drop the "-ski" from the ends of their names! Which brings me to a joke I heard recently: What is long, hard, and Polish bride gets it on her wedding day? Answer: Her new last name! :hysterical:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> I notice you didn't answer the question. :hysterical:
> 
> And yes, I do fear Christians _in this country _more than I do Muslims. Christians are an exponentially larger and more politically-active group (again, _in this country_). I have never heard of a Muslim group organizing to try to restrict my reproductive freedom or campaign against same-sex marriage. I'm not saying they're not out there; just that I haven't seen any. For that matter, I'm not aware of any Muslims who have killed gay people _in this country_.





http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/muslim-extremist-arrested-murder-gays-seattle

Now you have. One google search, one minute, I'm sure there's more.

I'm sorry you "fear" Christians, but getting to know a true Christian might alleviate that fear.
There's really nothing to fear from someone who believes in loving, not harming others.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I notice you didn't answer the question. :hysterical:
> 
> And yes, I do fear Christians _in this country _more than I do Muslims. Christians are an exponentially larger and more politically-active group (again, _in this country_). I have never heard of a Muslim group organizing to try to restrict my reproductive freedom or campaign against same-sex marriage. I'm not saying they're not out there; just that I haven't seen any. For that matter, I'm not aware of any Muslims who have killed gay people _in this country_.
> 
> ...


Really? Look up honor killings- a term that did not exist in the US until imported recently. Aimed right at women and their right to live their own life. The worst a Christian family will do is tell a member they are no longer welcome.

I was shocked the first time I spoke to a not-yet-eighteen-years-old Afghan woman who was travelling back to Afghanistan to marry a man she never met. Not check out but marry. "To please her family." Of course this was a life or death issue for her. 

As for dodging the question, it is you who dodge with that "not yet here" stuff. That's like saying you don't fear AIDS because you don't have it. Think what your personal life would be like if those rights are not defended by those you seem to dislike so much.

And as to majority rule- it is not that the majority has the right to eliminate the religious rights of the minority in this case. It is saying that the minority can't restrict the rights of the majority for their own convenience.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I notice you didn't answer the question. :hysterical:
> 
> And yes, I do fear Christians _in this country _more than I do Muslims. Christians are an exponentially larger and more politically-active group (again, _in this country_). I have never heard of a Muslim group organizing to try to restrict my reproductive freedom or campaign against same-sex marriage. I'm not saying they're not out there; just that I haven't seen any. For that matter, I'm not aware of any Muslims who have killed gay people _in this country_.
> 
> ...


Majority is important, but not to the detriment of the constitution. Like, if Dearborn, MI gets enuf muslims to try to put sharia law into the law there, it SHOULD be struck down, b/c not compatible w/Constitution.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I'm sorry you "fear" Christians, but getting to know a true Christian might alleviate that fear.


Oh, I have known some lovely Christian people over the years! My mother's church family was very kind to us during her passing. I also had some friends back in MI, an elderly Quaker couple who wintered in AZ and were very active in the 'Sanctuary' movement. I'm not sure I agree(d) with their politics, but I was impressed that they were willing to risk their own well-being out of religious conviction. Now that's walking the walk! 

In short, I don't think being a Christian is a bar to being a decent human being, but it's no guarantee of such, either. 


> As for dodging the question, it is you who dodge with that "not yet here" stuff. That's like saying you don't fear AIDS because you don't have it. Think what your personal life would be like if those rights are not defended by those you seem to dislike so much.


I don't envision Christians as defending me from Muslims; they're more like two sides of the same unpleasant coin. Each would probably do me harm if it could. At the very least, it would seek to restrict my freedoms.

Our best defense against fundamentalism of any sort is to uphold the First Amendment. Government shouldn't intrude into religion, and religion shouldn't intrude into government. 



> Majority is important, but not to the detriment of the constitution. Like, if Dearborn, MI gets enuf muslims to try to put sharia law into the law there, it SHOULD be struck down, b/c not compatible w/Constitution.


Exactly. Very good. Hopefully you can also see that the 10 Commandments aren't compatible, either. 

Now, getting back to this "American cultural mores should prevail" issue ... I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the fellow who gave us that term probably was using it in the sense of "White, middle-class cultural mores." (If I'm wrong, I'm sure he'll be back to correct me.) 

But if we hold that everyone should adopt white, middle-class cultural mores because white, middle-class people are the majority, what happens in (IIRC) 2042, when white people will no longer be a majority in this country? Following the "majority rules" doctrine, should all the white middle-class folks be required to renounce their "cultural mores" and, I dunno, start celebrating Cinco de Mayo and listening to hip-hop? 

Anyone who argues in favor of "majority rule" should give some thought to what might happen if his faction is no longer the majority. Tit for tat, as they say. :teehee:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Oh, I have known some lovely Christian people over the years! My mother's church family was very kind to us during her passing. I also had some friends back in MI, an elderly Quaker couple who wintered in AZ and were very active in the 'Sanctuary' movement. I'm not sure I agree(d) with their politics, but I was impressed that they were willing to risk their own well-being out of religious conviction. Now that's walking the walk!
> 
> In short, I don't think being a Christian is a bar to being a decent human being, but it's no guarantee of such, either.
> 
> ...


I'm a Christian, why would I want to hurt You? And, I will also stand with Isreal against the Muslims to protect YOU.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I don't envision Christians as defending me from Muslims; they're more like two sides of the same unpleasant coin. Each would probably do me harm if it could. At the very least, it would seek to restrict my freedoms.
> 
> Our best defense against fundamentalism of any sort is to uphold the First Amendment. Government shouldn't intrude into religion, and religion shouldn't intrude into government.


If Islam upholds the huge restrictions on women's activities whenever men choose that it should be so and Christian oppose this then indeed you are being defended.

And BTW the first amendment is a restriction on government's actions only. The activities of the people can be as religiously based as they want as long as the government does not become a tool of enforcement. Thus religious based groups have as much right of protest, petition, etc as anyone else.

To support the lobbying of Muslims while condemning the same from Christians is illogical.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Ok- I've gone round and round about this. And I'm not going to ***** foot around it any more, not even to myself.

I fear the growth of Islam. It is not that I have not known kind Muslims but, looking at the Islamic countries around the world, they are dominated by violence exceeding the spasmodic nature of violence in non-Islamic countries. Every place Islam is a substantial minority, there are violent conflicts with the other people, religious or not. In places where Islam is dominant there is wholesale repression first of other religions, then of variations inside Islam.

This is not so rare a human characteristic but is extreme in Muslim countries. Especially when it comes to brutal suppression of women.

In the US it is a religion that appeals to the disaffected, who confuse the current dominate religion with the human defects that use it. They see Christianity as a bad thing simply because they think that whatever bad things than happened in their lives would not have happened under Islam. Islam is a natural attractant for the angry and is being happily used by those who hate. Islam encourages violent retaliation. 

And it comes at a point when secular and Christian forces are aligned in a level of self delusional tolerance that will not resist Islam's extremists. All that has to happen is this current insistence on not criticizing Islam to allow the most violent people to hide under that cover until we find ourselves in a constant escalation of violent tit for tat.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

10 Commandments?
They are what our laws are based upon. Would anyone rather it be sharia law?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I'm a Christian, why would I want to hurt You?


Well, it's possible you don't. Your Bible calls for the execution of gay men. Some might interpret that to include the rest of the LGBT spectrum as well, in which case, I'd be screwed. But on the other hand, the Bible doesn't say anything specific about people of my persuasion, and men (who get to the call the shots in your religion) generally love bi chicks, so perhaps I'm safe. Whew! :teehee:



> And it comes at a point when secular and Christian forces are aligned in  a level of self delusional tolerance that will not resist Islam's extremists. All that has to happen is this current insistence on not criticizing Islam to allow the most violent people to hide under that cover until we find ourselves in a constant escalation of violent tit for tat.


I'm of a different opinion. I don't think our secular culture is a very good petri dish for religious extremism. Yes, you will find the occasional example, but I think a society that is tolerant of a wide range of beliefs will be less of a pressure cooker than one in which particular minorities are singled out for persecution. It is prejudice and persecution that fosters extremism, IMO, by creating a climate of suspicion and alienation. 

In fact, I believe many of the problems Europe is experiencing right now with its Muslim population stems from the lack of assimilation, for which Europeans share in the blame. Put baldly, it seems many countries wanted the cheap labor, but didn't really want Muslims to become citizens or fully participate in society. Traditionally, they've been treated rather shabbily. What's the old saying? "Sow the wind, reap a whirlwind"? 



> 10 Commandments?
> They are what our laws are based upon.


:huh:
Umm, not really. Let's take a peek at them, shall we, and see how they stack up against our laws?

!. âYou shall have no other gods before me." - Clearly contradicts the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from endorsing a specific religion (or, one would presume, deity). 

2. âYou shall not make unto you any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" - No laws against the making of idols, as far as I can tell.

3. âYou shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.â - Excessive cussing in public might get you socked with a charge of disorderly conduct, but not for religious reasons!

4. âRemember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labour, and do all your work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God ..." - Some jurisdictions do have "blue laws" that prevent certain businesses from opening on Sundays, but in general, Americans aren't required to abide by this commandment. 

5. âHonor your father and your mother" - A nice idea, but not one that is generally codified into law. 

6." You shall not kill.â - Ahh, this one DOES seem to have been encapsulated in our laws, but then, the same could be said for practically any human society. The ancient Hebrews weren't being especially original here!

7. âYou shall not commit adultery.â - Adultery remains a crime in some places, but when was the last time you heard of the statute being enforced?

8. âYou shall not steal.â -- Ditto #6

9. âYou shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.â - OK, our laws line up with the Commandments on this one.

10. âYou shall not covet your neighbour's house, you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is your neighbour's.â - Heck, coveting our neighbors' stuff is practically the national passtime! Ever hear of the phrase, "Keeping up with the Joneses"?

So, to recap, only 3 out of the 10 Commandments (those prohibiting stealing, killing and bearing false witness) are generally reflected in our laws, and two of the three are so fundamental to human society that they're hardly exclusive to Christianity! Thus I'd say it's quite a stretch to assert that our laws are based on the Commandments.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Correction the OLD TESTAMENT calls for execution of gays... and witches and adulterers and and there is a long list. 
The NEW which we Christians obey does not. 
In fact it says to treat EVERYONE as we want to be treated. (Mat 7)
We are also told that as much as possible we are to live peacefully with all. (Rom 12)
It however also tells us to be separate and have nothing to do with those who practice these things. Which the law is trying really hard to force us to do. (Houston's new bathroom law comes to mind) (2 Cor. 6)

Now as for the call to prayer. If there is a muslim church they should ring their bells just as a Christian church should. 

Unless Duke is a Muslim college, it should not. Unless of course they ring bells for Christian things too.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> Well, it's possible you don't. Your Bible calls for the execution of gay men. Some might interpret that to include the rest of the LGBT spectrum as well, in which case, I'd be screwed. But on the other hand, the Bible doesn't say anything specific about people of my persuasion, and men (who get to the call the shots in your religion) generally love bi chicks, so perhaps I'm safe. Whew! :teehee:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I'd like to make some minor corrections or at least voice the opinion that you missed a few..........

Let's start at the top.
You get an A for knowing about our first amendment. We're not like some others who feel the need to make Christianity a legal compulsion.
Although I really wish people _would_ understand that taking the Lord's name in vain is not defined by just cursing. In fact I bet most of the time people say it they probably mean it, so that wouldn't be in vain, lol
It's more important than that. C'mon you think God would put a potty mouth right up there with a murderer?
It's calling yourself a child of God (taking His name) and then acting like the Devil on a saturday night. Then doing it again.....that's doing something in vain.
But it's not against the law nevertheless.

Now, Honor your father and mother isn't codified?
:huh:
Know any parental rights laws?
Familiar with minors needing parental permission to do most everything?
Ever hear of parents being held responsible in court for juvenile misdeeds?
And last but not least, what's the one piece of ID that everyone has to produce from time to time?
Birth Certificate.
And who are the people that everyone wants to see on it?
Mommy and Daddy.

Next, Adultery.
While you may not see many rap sheets with that charge, you can bet the divorce courts have a big docket.
It's part of our civil law and a big one when it comes to legally dissolve a marriage.

Finally, coveting your neighbors.......stuff.

Is coveting just drooling over Mr. Jones' ........uh...car?:umno:
It's wanting to posses his car, his house, his wife.
If you go buy your own, then you have something now, and he still has his.
This is a cautionary law, because we all know people that wanted something someone else had so bad, they lied, stole, killed or adulterated to get it....which will likely land you in court as well.

So you see, the last half of the Commandments, the ones relating mankind to each other, are all part of our laws today.
The ones relating man to God, we let God handle that on His own.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I'm of a different opinion. I don't think our secular culture is a very good petri dish for religious extremism. Yes, you will find the occasional example, but I think a society that is tolerant of a wide range of beliefs will be less of a pressure cooker than one in which particular minorities are singled out for persecution. It is prejudice and persecution that fosters extremism, IMO, by creating a climate of suspicion and alienation.
> 
> In fact, I believe many of the problems Europe is experiencing right now with its Muslim population stems from the lack of assimilation, for which Europeans share in the blame. Put baldly, it seems many countries wanted the cheap labor, but didn't really want Muslims to become citizens or fully participate in society. Traditionally, they've been treated rather shabbily.
> .


Lack of assimulation due to cheap labor, huh. That certainly sounds like the interpretation from some communist pamphlet. 
Since wherever Islam immigrates these days, lack of assimulation follows, you think that it might be a good idea to look at the immigrants who seek to blame others? 
Immigration always strains a society when it is massive, yet no other group has used these tensions to exercise murder on a large scale. There are no Chinese terrorists, nor Indian, Middle European, Mexican, Hmong, Russian, Guatemalan, etc etc etc terrorists groups , despite having the same intergration issues. 
No, it takes a combination of self importance, blaming others, readiness to take insult and religious immersion to create terrorism as a solution. 

And the obstinate refusal of the current US and European to understand that because it trips up their fantasies is why they are so dangerous. Treating people as if they have a special place free of responsibility because of the host's lack of "perfection," will only cause more "lack of assimulation," not less. And religious fervor will always outlast lack of any fervor about everything.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Willow"Well, it's possible you don't. Your Bible calls for the execution of gay men. Some might interpret that to include the rest of the LGBT spectrum as well, in which case, I'd be screwed. But on the other hand, the Bible doesn't say anything specific about people of my persuasion, and men (who get to the call the shots in your religion) generally love bi chicks, so perhaps I'm safe. Whew!"



First off. I think men like bi's because the hope to get 2 women in the sack with them,fantesy stuff, sometimes reality-big deal. Real men grow up and realize sex can make your life he double hockey pucks just like drugs ,gambleing, ....
Second, once Jesus was Born, it's not up to me to execute anyone because of their sexuality. Yes, I can make judgements about things, then I'm supposed to go from there on how I conduct MY life.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Correction the OLD TESTAMENT calls for execution of gays... and witches and adulterers and and there is a long list.
> The NEW which we Christians obey does not.


The problem is, it's still there in your holy book. 

It's funny; Christians frequently condemn Muslims for not speaking out against the offensive passages in the Koran -- for instance, those telling Muslims that they ought to kill nonbelievers. But how many times do you hear of Christians voluntarily denouncing the offensive passages in THEIR holy book? :huh:



> Lack of assimulation due to cheap labor, huh. That certainly sounds like the interpretation from some communist pamphlet.


Umm, no. Go study the history. Europe after WWII had a huge shortage of manpower (because so many European men were, umm, DEAD) combined with a need for labor to rebuild devastated cities and infrastructure. 



> The [German] government and the economy were ecstatic over the Turkish guest workers, who were "between 18 and 45, at the prime of their labor capacity," boosted tax revenues and social security contributions and made a "substantial contribution to increasing production levels."


http://www.spiegel.de/international...eption-and-wasted-opportunities-a-716067.html

The Germans wanted to use these people when it was convenient for them, while expecting them (and their children) to magically disappear after they were no longer needed. Umm, it didn't quite work out that way ... :teehee:


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Yes it is there.
under the old law. Unlike Muslims we do not try to kill those who refuse to follow our holy book. Nor do we kill those who make fun of us or our holy or important people.
We also do not kill gays or others who disagree with us.
I do not hear calls for them to denounce the passages but instead those who practice them in the extreme.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

There are so few that understand what Jesus meant when He said, "I came not to change the law, but to fulfill it."
When you know what that means, you can carry OT and NT around without fear.
You have some Christians today that think the OT is done away with, but as soon as you say that, a non believer will come along, pull out a Levitical verse and use it to say the Bible isn't valid anymore or else try to make you defend stoning gays in public.
The Devil himself tried to play scripture lawyer with Christ in the wilderness. He wasn't having any of it and sent him on his way.
The part Willow likes to leave out, is all capital offenses required the testimony of at least two witnesses.
If two men are having sex in their bedroom, I'm not about to break and enter, be a voyeur with other witnesses in tow, just so I can fulfill the OT law. I'd be a criminal too.
They tried to trap Jesus Himself into stoning an adulterer, but by the time he was finished, there was only the woman and Himself left in the town square.
Only one witness (Jesus) so he sent her on her way, alive.
He knew the law better than anybody because He WAS the law. That's why you have to be wiser than the serpent when someone wants to debate scripture with you.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Willow and the word was MURDER not kill...just like they used different words for different forms of love. They used different words for death at the hand of man.

Murder was out of anger, or personal gain,lust 

Kill was sort as a duty of protection....

Using bible study guides will aid you in how translations can confuse people and give fodder to those in need of it.

Strongs and a vine if you want a deeper understanding of the bible.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Umm, no. Go study the history. Europe after WWII had a huge shortage of manpower (because so many European men were, umm, DEAD) combined with a need for labor to rebuild devastated cities and infrastructure.
> 
> 
> http://www.spiegel.de/international...eption-and-wasted-opportunities-a-716067.html
> ...


The point was not cheap labor but your assertion that cheap labor means no assimulation means terrorism. Lots of places looked to immigration for cheap labor, lots of people have done so but none of them have created terrorists. Outside of Islam. No Catholic terrorists, no Bhuddists terrorists, no Sikh, Hindu,- no one. 
Well, maybe Communists like Cuba. Maybe that is a similarity- both think that asserting their ways is enough reason to kill without discrimination. At least Communists do not do so for revenge for words.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Back to the taking God's name in vain...couldn't that be where some cities get their laws about saying certain 'cuss' words in public?


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Another thing on the murder and so forth.
The OT was a physical law.
The NT, in Mat 5, Jesus makes the transition from physical law to spiritual law.

Now it is not only an offence to DO these things, but the root cause, the desire, is also a sin. These thoughts will pop into our head but as Martin Luther said, I may not be able to prevent them, but as birds landing on my head can be made to move, I do not have to allow them to nest. 

It is not just the murder we are not allowed to do, we are not allowed to hate, which ultimately is the root cause of murder. 

It is one thing to be able to list verses, it is a whole other thing to study and understand those verses in context. There is no hidden agenda as some proclaim. God says what he means and means what he says.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> The point was not cheap labor but your assertion that cheap labor means no assimulation means terrorism.


No, it's not quite that simple. The Germans didn't want the Turks (and other minority guest workers) to fully partake in German society. Even the children of guest workers, who had been born and had lived their whole lives in Germany, were denied citizenship until fairly recently!

Germans wanted to exploit these people when it was convenient for them to do so, and get rid of them afterwards. Can you see how that breeds a sense of alienation and resentment?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> No, it's not quite that simple. The Germans didn't want the Turks (and other minority guest workers) to fully partake in German society. Even the children of guest workers, who had been born and had lived their whole lives in Germany, were denied citizenship until fairly recently!
> 
> Germans wanted to exploit these people when it was convenient for them to do so, and get rid of them afterwards. Can you see how that breeds a sense of alienation and resentment?


In the first place that's no more true for Turks and Germans than for many, many other groups. But in fact, almost all the terrorists attacks by Islamists in Germany were not made against Germans or German institutions but against jewish or American target. And by people who converted to Islam- native born Germans. And anyway, most terrorist incidents in Germany have been by Communists. Your assertions simply are not supported.

And it simply does not explain the terrorist attacks by muslims in Mumbai or the Ft Worth killer,or Boko Haram or 9/11 done by visitors, etc etc etc.

To say it's all because of the victim's behavior is simply another excuse given to people using their religion's incitement to take out their anger against everyone they hate. And they hate quite a lot. It's the go-to assertion by those who have failed and so become tools of Islam's political goals.

Such assertions only permit the expression of frustration as wholesale violence.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

7thswan said:


> I had no idea bells had anything to "say". I'm not religious in the usual sense. I do have a farm bell, it has never spoke to me tho.


In times past before wrist and pocket watches, bells regulated life time wise. In the morning, wake up call, at 11AM the woman left the field and went home to prepare food, this bell was called 'soupbell' in the vernacular. At twelve everybody knew it was noon and went home to eat. 

the evening bell in my youth was called the prayer bell, also the angelus bell. I had to be home by then because it was at dusk. Be home by the angelus bell.... 
There was a special, smaller bell that announced someone had died.


----------

