3 ms·

It would be pretty easy to make an argument against many sects of Christianity on the same grounds (yes, really: http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/146

by scrod 16y ago

It would be pretty easy to make an argument against many sects of Christianity on the same grounds (yes, really: http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/146438 http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/146438); literally thousands of people have been incited to violence by radical right-wing preachers over the decades. Does that mean that Christians are dangerous to the United States and should be stopped at the border? Freedom of religion is at the heart of the founding principles of the United States of America — I can't think of anything more central to the identity of this country. If you're going to speak against freedom of religion, then it would be a very short stretch to call that position "anti-American" — and any national defense policy considered with that pretext is already severely undermined.

AndyKelley 16y ago
You've got a good point about making an argument against many sects of Christianity. Perhaps they should be in the same boat. When you say freedom of religion, you don't mean complete freedom. What if my religion states that I shouldn't pay taxes? Obviously this religion would not be tolerated.
- scrod 16y ago
  >When you say freedom of religion, you don't mean complete freedom. What if my religion states that I shouldn't pay taxes? Obviously this religion would not be tolerated. That's why we have laws which define the boundaries and interactions between the freedoms of society's members. It's not useful or practical to define freedom in any other context (i.e., that in nature, outside of society), because there would be no conflicts in that case. Freedom can only really be discussed in terms of social relations. But these are issues that U.S. courts have had quite a lot to say about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_Unit... And the situation with Islam today certainly has historical precedents: Anti-Catholicism was widespread in the 1920s; anti-Catholics, including the Ku Klux Klan, believed that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy and that parochial schools encouraged separatism and kept Catholics from becoming loyal Americans. The Catholics responded to such prejudices by repeatedly asserting their rights as American citizens and by arguing that they, not the nativists (anti-Catholics), were true patriots since they believed in the right to freedom of religion.
  - AndyKelley 16y ago
    OK I'm not really sure what we're arguing about anymore. Your original point was...I just did a double take. All this time I thought you were being doubly sarcastic, so I completely misinterpreted your meaning. My original point was: I agree, it was unreasonable of the security guard to do that. However, if the Muslim religion is violent when taken seriously, it can be valid to question whether someone is a believer in that violence. What I should have done is left to question whether the Muslim religion is violent when taken seriously, because I'm not sure about that. Do you agree with the if-then clause in my argument?
    - scrod 16y ago
      The sarcasm ended after I pointed it out.
rick888 16y ago
"It would be pretty easy to make an argument against many sects of Christianity on the same grounds (yes, really: http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/146438 http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/146438); literally thousands of people have been incited to violence by radical right-wing preachers over the decades. Does that mean that Christians are dangerous to the United States and should be stopped at the border?" Are they acting on it? Do you have suicide bombers killing people in other countries in the name of Christianity? You pointed to one, single, crazy group that may or may not even be affiliated with religion. It's funny how all the intelligent people here seem to play dumb when it comes to understanding why US customs agents may want question someone that could be a potential threat to the US. If it were middle-age white guys that were killing people, I would hope custom agents would profile them as well. It's the intelligent thing to do. "Freedom of religion is at the heart of the founding principles of the United States of America " I find it hilarious that the lefties in the US are so against religion..unless it's Islam. I think it's probably because they are both on the side against the Unites States.
- scrod 16y ago
  >You pointed to one, single, crazy group that may or may not even be affiliated with religion. Would you like some more? http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/hate.htm http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/hate.htm http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map (Click on any state) Look at any of these groups and you'd be very, very hard-pressed to find one without an ideological claim to a Christian identity. These groups pose a very real threat, which is why the FBI tracks and monitors them. However, the existence of right-wing Christian hate groups does not indict all practitioners of Christianity world-wide. As for the rest of your post, you've simply attempted to rebut a series of arguments that nobody actually made — I believe they call these "straw man" fallacies. E.g.: I never mentioned "profiling" — the issues are religious persecution and outright harassment by government officials, in a blatantly unconstitutional fashion. >"Lefties are against religion." "Lefties are against the United States." Really? Seriously? Why don't you read my posts again — this time carefully, and try once more.

by scrod 16y ago

AndyKelley 16y ago

You've got a good point about making an argument against many sects of Christianity. Perhaps they should be in the same boat. When you say freedom of religion, you don't mean complete freedom. What if my religion states that I shouldn't pay taxes? Obviously this religion would not be tolerated.

scrod 16y ago
>When you say freedom of religion, you don't mean complete freedom. What if my religion states that I shouldn't pay taxes? Obviously this religion would not be tolerated. That's why we have laws which define the boundaries and interactions between the freedoms of society's members. It's not useful or practical to define freedom in any other context (i.e., that in nature, outside of society), because there would be no conflicts in that case. Freedom can only really be discussed in terms of social relations. But these are issues that U.S. courts have had quite a lot to say about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_Unit... And the situation with Islam today certainly has historical precedents: Anti-Catholicism was widespread in the 1920s; anti-Catholics, including the Ku Klux Klan, believed that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy and that parochial schools encouraged separatism and kept Catholics from becoming loyal Americans. The Catholics responded to such prejudices by repeatedly asserting their rights as American citizens and by arguing that they, not the nativists (anti-Catholics), were true patriots since they believed in the right to freedom of religion.
- AndyKelley 16y ago
  OK I'm not really sure what we're arguing about anymore. Your original point was...I just did a double take. All this time I thought you were being doubly sarcastic, so I completely misinterpreted your meaning. My original point was: I agree, it was unreasonable of the security guard to do that. However, if the Muslim religion is violent when taken seriously, it can be valid to question whether someone is a believer in that violence. What I should have done is left to question whether the Muslim religion is violent when taken seriously, because I'm not sure about that. Do you agree with the if-then clause in my argument?
  - scrod 16y ago
    The sarcasm ended after I pointed it out.

rick888 16y ago

"It would be pretty easy to make an argument against many sects of Christianity on the same grounds (yes, really: http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/146438 http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/146438); literally thousands of people have been incited to violence by radical right-wing preachers over the decades. Does that mean that Christians are dangerous to the United States and should be stopped at the border?" Are they acting on it? Do you have suicide bombers killing people in other countries in the name of Christianity? You pointed to one, single, crazy group that may or may not even be affiliated with religion. It's funny how all the intelligent people here seem to play dumb when it comes to understanding why US customs agents may want question someone that could be a potential threat to the US. If it were middle-age white guys that were killing people, I would hope custom agents would profile them as well. It's the intelligent thing to do. "Freedom of religion is at the heart of the founding principles of the United States of America " I find it hilarious that the lefties in the US are so against religion..unless it's Islam. I think it's probably because they are both on the side against the Unites States.

scrod 16y ago
>You pointed to one, single, crazy group that may or may not even be affiliated with religion. Would you like some more? http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/hate.htm http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/hate.htm http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map (Click on any state) Look at any of these groups and you'd be very, very hard-pressed to find one without an ideological claim to a Christian identity. These groups pose a very real threat, which is why the FBI tracks and monitors them. However, the existence of right-wing Christian hate groups does not indict all practitioners of Christianity world-wide. As for the rest of your post, you've simply attempted to rebut a series of arguments that nobody actually made — I believe they call these "straw man" fallacies. E.g.: I never mentioned "profiling" — the issues are religious persecution and outright harassment by government officials, in a blatantly unconstitutional fashion. >"Lefties are against religion." "Lefties are against the United States." Really? Seriously? Why don't you read my posts again — this time carefully, and try once more.