dermdoc said:

---

Is hating someone' to you the same as imprisoning or killing them?

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Is hating someone' to you the same as imprisoning or killing them?

---

Hatred takes many forms of expression. Sometimes its violent. Sometimes its openly antagonistic and deliberate. Sometimes its indifference to their suffering. Sometimes its a prejudice against their kind living in your community.

I'm making the observation that, from my perspective, how some Christians view Islam looks a lot like how some Muslims view Christians. Christians (currently) are just less violent about it. . . which feels like pretty weak justification for moral superiority.

---

Zobel said:

---

that's a pretty sophisticated dodge. instead of answering the question as to rights and freedoms and grounding them, you pivoted to meta-question about whether we need shared foundations or merely shared outcomes.

which implies that sources are irrelevant and interchangeable - it doesn't matter where the origin is as long as everyone arrives at the same endpoint, which is a sleight of hand. you're treating our system as a neutral framework that can be independently derived from any set of premises... but in reality, in practice, no pre-modern tradition gets anything close to Lockean rights or a secular state at all.

you actually beg the question here of the totalizing secular premise (religion is private, state is neutral and sovereign over public sphere) while denying that this outcome itself rests on contested philosophical premises.

by saying you don't need the same derivation you're just dodging the fact that some worldviews - some which are being discussed in this thread - explicitly and openly reject the public/private split as a valid way to order society.

this is a non-answer dichotomy. if i say, sure foundations don't matter as long as we all agree, i have to accept your secular-liberal premise without ever interrogating it or questioning it. if i say they don't, you get to say pfft you're just demanding ideological conformity beyond the necessary acceptance that i require.

you're just moving from reality to abstraction about a pluralism of justifications - which is how the secular state maintains its totalizing character while presenting itself as neutral, when it is not.

the question of why we have these particular rights is not optional in this discussion. the constitutional order of the US is not derivation neutral. it exists in history, in a chain of political, religious, and philosophical thought.

in other words - it doesn't matter to you, because if everyone accepts your "mere" premises, they've accepted the entire framework of your worldview by default - and subordinated anything that opposes. hey, we all arrived at the same place (complete victory for secularism, what a coincidence)

---

Zobel said:

---

eh actually so far secularism has defeated all challengers, and liberalism in particular has dominated other forms of secularism. TBD

---

Zobel said:

---

That's because your worldview is a post-Christian agnosticism, and you can't imagine that other people hold genuinely different imaginative frameworks.

There is no particular reason a person who isn't western should share ANY of your presuppositions about rights, morality, government, the aims of society, etc.

You're basically asking for Muslims to not be actual Muslims, who have a completely different set of presuppositions from you, but be like you only worshipping differently. It is as if you have no concept of mind for people who aren't like you. It's short sighted.

---

Quote:

---

"Every people is only a people so long as it has its own god and excludes all other gods on earth irreconcilably; so long as it believes that by its god it will conquer and drive out of the world all other gods... When gods begin to be common to several nations the gods are dying and the faith in them, together with the nations themselves."

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

You can call it a dodge, I call it trying to move the conversation somewhere more productive. There is no point to answering your question head on regarding where rights and freedoms come from from. We've had the discussion. You reject my presuppositions and I reject yours.

If the question of why we have these particular rights is not option, then we should discuss where did these rights came from? Did they come from a monolith of theological and moral Christian consensus? Or from a hodge podge of prominent leaders who supported freedoms and rights from the position of inalienable rights endowed by a Creator like Jefferson, and from Deists arguing from a position of natural law and rationalism like Franklin, and from arguments of pragmaticism and social contract like Hamilton?

The Constitution's protections for individual rights weren't just an expression of Christian idealism - they were a pragmatic response to real time human disagreement.

Quote:

---

by saying you don't need the same derivation you're just dodging the fact that some worldviews - some which are being discussed in this thread - explicitly and openly reject the public/private split as a valid way to order society.

---

I think that I've been pretty open about the fact that I acknowledge the incompatibility of some worldviews. And I think I've been pretty clear that worldviews which explicitly reject Constitutional values is a concern.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The problem is secularism will never be victorious when there are evil powerful forces that will slaughter them. History is ripe with examples.

---

Of course! Peace can only be reached against the forces of evil with self-declared righteous individuals divinely authorized to spill the blood of those they deem evil.

Hopefully the sarcasm came through. . . . If not: Peace depends on collaboration and understanding, not on self-appointed righteousness and rigid dogmatism. The problem with religion is that it indoctrinates its followers into never stopping to ask whether or not they are one of those evil powerful forces. If God is on your side, who could be against you, right?

---

dermdoc said:

---

I try to be on God's side not He being n my side.

The problem with your worldview is it discounts man's sinful nature.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I try to be on God's side not He being n my side.

The problem with your worldview is it discounts man's sinful nature.

---

And I try not to pretend that I know what God wants. The problem with your worldview is it presumes your own infallibility. When you KNOW you are on God's side - then you presume to take His role.

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I try to be on God's side not He being n my side.

The problem with your worldview is it discounts man's sinful nature.

---

And I try not to pretend that I know what God wants. The problem with your worldview is it presumes your own infallibility. When you KNOW you are on God's side - then you presume to take His role.

---

Disagree. I am very fallible. God is not. And to me being on "God's side" is to produce the fruits of the Spirit. Peace, joy, love, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I try to be on God's side not He being n my side.

The problem with your worldview is it discounts man's sinful nature.

---

And I try not to pretend that I know what God wants. The problem with your worldview is it presumes your own infallibility. When you KNOW you are on God's side - then you presume to take His role.

---

Disagree. I am very fallible. God is not. And to me being on "God's side" is to produce the fruits of the Spirit. Peace, joy, love, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control.

---

Fallible enough to be accidently worshipping the wrong God or to be significantly wrong about what God wants?

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Aggie__11 said:

---

It's funny seeing liberals defending Muslims/Islam when their religion culture is counter to everything liberals and the left believe in.

---

I'm not interested in xenophobia. I take people as individuals.

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

There's around 400,000 Muslims in Texas. Thats maybe 1% of the population. The xenophobia is just a touch ridiculous.

---

Islam is not compatible with the Western culture. HTH.

---

There are plenty of Muslims who get along just fine in the west. Islamic fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon from the last 40-50 years.

---

You have obviously never served in the military or deployed in a combat zone with Muslims. Sharia law is not comparable with western culture. People like you will be the down fall of our society. You are easily fooled.

---

I spent 29 months in Iraq. I'm far better acquainted with actual Muslims than the vast majority of right wing keyboard warriors.

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Fallible enough to be accidently worshipping the wrong God or to be significantly wrong about what God wants?

---

Fallible enough and cognizant of human sinful nature enough to know I need a Savior.

I believe Christianity is the only belief system that offers that.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Fallible enough to be accidently worshipping the wrong God or to be significantly wrong about what God wants?

---

Fallible enough and cognizant of human sinful nature enough to know I need a Savior.

I believe Christianity is the only belief system that offers that.

---

Could you be wrong about your understanding of human sinful nature or your need for a savior? After all, you only believe those things because Christianity teaches you that you are sinful and in need of a savior and then offers you the solution.

As far as I'm concerned, your response does not reveal any sort of humility. This is a false humility whereby you 'bow' to your own imperfections, while simultaneously claiming authority over truth.

Is it possible that those who refuse to look beyond their own faith are not seeking truththey are only worshiping themselves, their culture, or their religion?

---

Aggie__11 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

There's around 400,000 Muslims in Texas. Thats maybe 1% of the population. The xenophobia is just a touch ridiculous.

---

Islam is not compatible with the Western culture. HTH.

---

There are plenty of Muslims who get along just fine in the west. Islamic fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon from the last 40-50 years.

---

You have obviously never served in the military or deployed in a combat zone with Muslims. Sharia law is not comparable with western culture. People like you will be the down fall of our society. You are easily fooled.

---

I spent 29 months in Iraq. I'm far better acquainted with actual Muslims than the vast majority of right wing keyboard warriors.

---

This makes you some type of expert ? Sure thing bud

---

Quote:

---

If the question of why we have these particular rights is not option, then we should discuss where did these rights came from? Did they come from a monolith of theological and moral Christian consensus? Or from a hodge podge of prominent leaders who supported freedoms and rights from the position of inalienable rights endowed by a Creator like Jefferson, and from Deists arguing from a position of natural law and rationalism like Franklin, and from arguments of pragmaticism and social contract like Hamilton?

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

There's around 400,000 Muslims in Texas. Thats maybe 1% of the population. The xenophobia is just a touch ridiculous.

---

Islam is not compatible with the Western culture. HTH.

---

There are plenty of Muslims who get along just fine in the west. Islamic fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon from the last 40-50 years.

---

You have obviously never served in the military or deployed in a combat zone with Muslims. Sharia law is not comparable with western culture. People like you will be the down fall of our society. You are easily fooled.

---

I spent 29 months in Iraq. I'm far better acquainted with actual Muslims than the vast majority of right wing keyboard warriors.

---

davinhalcyon said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

There's around 400,000 Muslims in Texas. Thats maybe 1% of the population. The xenophobia is just a touch ridiculous.

---

Islam is not compatible with the Western culture. HTH.

---

There are plenty of Muslims who get along just fine in the west. Islamic fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon from the last 40-50 years.

---

You have obviously never served in the military or deployed in a combat zone with Muslims. Sharia law is not comparable with western culture. People like you will be the down fall of our society. You are easily fooled.

---

I spent 29 months in Iraq. I'm far better acquainted with actual Muslims than the vast majority of right wing keyboard warriors.

---

The problem, if we can say it that way, with "actual Muslims," is that the ordinary layperson Muslim in Iraq or the middle east in general is not intimately familiar with what the Quran or authentic Hadiths teach.

In a lot of ways, it's similar to Christianity in the West. A lot of people you meet on the street seem like good people and may even call themselves Christians, but lack any meaningful depth of knowledge on what the Bible teaches.

Ordinary Muslims in the middle east follow Islam through culture rather than the doctrines of their religious texts. That's what gives rise to the appearance of "peaceful muslims" vs Jihadists. I would wager any amount of money that if you asked a random Muslim on the streets of Bagdad, they would not realize that the whole cultural application of wearing a hijab is not found in the Quran but comes from the Hadith such as Al-Bukhari 146.

The reason Islam is not compatible with the West is not because of any cultural impediment, however different they might seem. And it's sad that 99% of the conversation revolves around that. The root cause of incompatibility has to do with the foundational religious texts.

For example, Surah 6:98, which says, "Verily those who disbelieve from among the people of the scriptures (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures."

And it is precisely due to foundational religious texts that condition Muslims to hate Jews that there will never be lasting peace between Muslims and Jews. There will always be a group that rises up to Jihad because of what the fundamental religious texts teach.

---

dermdoc said:

---

I have looked beyond my own faith. Studied human nature as a doc for about fifty years. I have come to the conclusion we are all fallen creatures and need an savior.

And for someone preaching humility, you sure seem to project a lot of what you think I believe. I have made no similar comments about your "humility" or belief system. Interesting.

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

If the question of why we have these particular rights is not option, then we should discuss where did these rights came from? Did they come from a monolith of theological and moral Christian consensus? Or from a hodge podge of prominent leaders who supported freedoms and rights from the position of inalienable rights endowed by a Creator like Jefferson, and from Deists arguing from a position of natural law and rationalism like Franklin, and from arguments of pragmaticism and social contract like Hamilton?

---

yeah man. perfect. its your system, you get to answer the questions. you said "a functioning and stable society requires that its members generally agree on...individual freedoms and rights."

it isnt unreasonable for me to ask, then what individual freedoms and rights are necessary to be generally agreed upon? and where do these come from?

it seems like your answer above is "consensus". is that right?

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I have looked beyond my own faith. Studied human nature as a doc for about fifty years. I have come to the conclusion we are all fallen creatures and need an savior.

And for someone preaching humility, you sure seem to project a lot of what you think I believe. I have made no similar comments about your "humility" or belief system. Interesting.

---

I don't agree with your conclusions, but I have no objection to the reasonableness of your conclusions in most cases. What I disagree with is the level of certainty.

This is a big reason why I 'preach' the "I don't know". I respect you. I respect your sincerity. You've studied religion and philosophy and human nature for 50 years and have arrived at a conclusion. In 44 years, I've failed to arrive at that conclusion. Am I missing something? Am I stupid? Why don't I arrive at the same conclusion. And then I observe the rest of the world and see a world full of people who have studied religion, philosophy, and have themselves studied human nature for 50+ years and they arrive at different conclusions that differ from yours. Why haven't I arrived at their conclusions? Am I missing something? Am I stupid? Why haven't I arrived at the same conclusions as brilliant and learned people from those other faiths, religions, and cultures?

There is a difference between studying a question and arriving, with confidence, at an answer and studying a question and arrive, with absolute certainty, at an answer.

Now. . . . to be fair, I don't really know you. Sometimes my posts can project a general frustration and maybe some of it is not fair criticism to you. Where I do that, I apologize.

---

RAB91 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

There's around 400,000 Muslims in Texas. Thats maybe 1% of the population. The xenophobia is just a touch ridiculous.

---

Islam is not compatible with the Western culture. HTH.

---

94chem said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

There's around 400,000 Muslims in Texas. Thats maybe 1% of the population. The xenophobia is just a touch ridiculous.

---

Islam is not compatible with the Western culture. HTH.

---

Following Christ isn't compatible with ANY culture. If you believe differently, you aren't a Christian.

---