Christians rely on the new testament as the source of their guiding principles. It's rooted in judeaism but that is not where it derives its basis in ethics. Whereas the Koran teaches opposition to the principles that drive the christian and does it wholesale. They are two totally different animals.

ps Since when is the existence of god considered a 'fact' ? If it is I'll profess belief RIGHT NOW.

I think that everyone interprets everything to do with religion to their own specs.. They use it as a justification to preach their own particular brand of whatever, just as there are many schisms in the christian faith, vis. jehovas witnesses, presbyterians, baptists, catholics, there are also many in the islamic faith, all of whom believe that their way is the right way, and of course they could be, but what of hinduism, buddhism, shintoism, paganism, are they not also valid to those who adhere to them, is their faith any less than anyone elses, should it not be the way to follow that which is good and accomodating to others, rather than forcefully insist on one way rather than all others, who knows which is right and wrong - until we get to where we will all end up eventually, who has the right to say?

---

I actually I never clicked to your link until after I had responded. Can't take a joke? Maybe you just think that people that don't agree with your views on religion shouldn't be posting in here.

I specifically said in one of my posts to Maggie that people I do not agree with (skeptics, agnostics, atheists) should post here. I just thought your post, that you think was a joke, was insulting and offensive to people with whom you seem to disagree. Don't try to turn your rude behavior around and blame me for your actions.

I think that everyone interprets everything to do with religion to their own specs.. They use it as a justification to preach their own particular brand of whatever, just as there are many schisms in the christian faith, vis. jehovas witnesses, presbyterians, baptists, catholics, there are also many in the islamic faith, all of whom believe that their way is the right way, and of course they could be, but what of hinduism, buddhism, shintoism, paganism, are they not also valid to those who adhere to them, is their faith any less than anyone elses, should it not be the way to follow that which is good and accomodating to others, rather than forcefully insist on one way rather than all others, who knows which is right and wrong - until we get to where we will all end up eventually, who has the right to say?

Which brings me back to my initial response: "There is only one God, but there are many paths that lead to the one." This is my view, of course, but I include the validity of Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, et al. I think there is more in common among these religions than you seem to find, at least in the area of moral teaching. Recall the teaching of whatever religious tradition you are familiar with: did you ever hear of a call to harm or destroy others who simply don't believe in the same religion? There are some who claim Islam teaches that, but it is not true--some people will take passages out of context and distort their meaning (the same distortion of meaning is possible for Christian writings, too). One should apply common sense in understanding religion; and in reading ethical teachings, it makes no sense to interpret a passage in a book about peace and love as calling for violence and hate.

What rude behavior is that, Tom?

Jewish veterans, local ACLU latest to sue over cross

By Greg Moran
Union-Tribune

August 25, 2006

The local chapter of The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit yesterday to force the Mount Soledad cross to be moved in the latest challenge over the La Jolla landmark's constitutionality.

The suit, filed in San Diego federal court on behalf of a national Jewish war veterans organization and three San Diego residents, is the newest development in an increasingly high-profile, 17-year legal battle over the cross.

On Aug. 14, President Bush signed a bill that transferred the ownership of the cross and war memorial site to the federal government, specifically the Department of Defense.

The bill halted a legal process that seemed destined to lead to the removal of the cross, which has stood on city-owned land for decades.

In May, San Diego federal Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. moved to enforce a decision he handed down in 1991 that the cross had to be removed.

He ruled that it violated the state constitution's ban on government showing a preference for religion. He gave the city 90 days to comply or face $5,000 per day in fines.

This set off a flurry of legal activity that culminated July 7 when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy blocked Thompson's order – stopping the clock on the city and allowing time for the congressional bill to move forward.

With the land now belonging to the federal government, the legal battle will shift to how courts interpret the federal – not state – constitutional ban on government support for religion.

Cross supporters contend they have a better chance of winning under the federal analysis. But opponents, including the ACLU, say that virtually nothing has changed with the transfer of land ownership.

“The issue is still the same,” said David Blair-Loy, legal director for the ACLU in San Diego. “We believe it is equally unconstitutional under state law, or federal law, for the government to subsidize, promote or endorse the Latin cross.”

The plaintiffs include the Jewish War Veterans of the United States, formed in 1896, which has posts across the country, including three in San Diego County.

The other plaintiffs are Richard A. Smith of La Jolla, a Navy veteran who is Jewish and the former head of the neurology branch of the Navy's Neuropsychiatric Research Unit in San Diego; Smith's wife, Mina Sagheb, a Muslim; and Judith Copeland, an attorney who has been a San Diego resident since 1974.

The ACLU lawsuit joins another suit challenging the cross, filed Aug. 9 by Philip Paulson, a Vietnam War veteran and atheist who originally sued the city in 1989 to get the cross removed.

That lawsuit argues that the cross not only violates the U.S. Constitution, but also seeks to overturn this summer's congressional action that transferred the property, said James McElroy, Paulson's lawyer.

Both lawsuits likely will be consolidated but will not be heard by Thompson, who has handled the cross litigation for 17 years. Instead, the cases – assigned randomly by a computer – will be heard by federal Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz.

The lawyer for a group trying to preserve the cross predicted that the new lawsuits will fail.

“We just believe whatever arguments they have will be properly dispatched, and we will prevail,” said Charles LiMandri of the San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial.

The group is not named in the ACLU suit, but LiMandri said it will join with the government to defend it.

Yesterday's legal challenge was filed even as two other legal actions in state and federal courts – both of which were in the works before the federal government took the land – are still pending.

Given the changed circumstances in the cross controversy, however, they might never be heard.

The city and LiMandri's group are appealing a ruling by a San Diego Superior Court judge that invalidated Proposition A. That measure, approved by voters last fall, would have allowed the city to transfer the property to the federal government.

The judge ruled the transfer showed an unconstitutional preference for religion under state law.

But now that the land is federal property by congressional, and not city, action, the issues in the case could be moot. LiMandri said his group will file papers dropping their role in the appeal next week.

McElroy, who has had informal discussions with city lawyers, said they may also abandon that appeal.

“It really doesn't get them anywhere, and it is costing them money,” he said.

A similar fate may befall the appeal in federal court. There, the city had tried to overturn Thompson's ruling in May to take the cross down within 90 days, contending it was an abuse of his judicial discretion.

With the cross no longer on city land, that appeal might also be irrelevant, said McElroy, and the city may also consider dropping it.

But Deputy City Attorney David Carlin said no decision on how to proceed on either case has been made. Any final decision would have to be made by the City Council, which is on recess until Sept. 6.

The city has another option aside from dropping the appeals, Carlin said. It could ask the courts that the appeals be put on hold pending the outcome of the latest suits, he said.

A decision would have to be made soon. Both cases are set for oral arguments in October.

---

me@rescam.org

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The line between atheism and persecution of the religious is rather non existant at times which is quite surprising since most atheists tout themselves to be big freedom people.

I for one am not religious but fully respect anyone elses right to practice any religion they want. Who am I to judge. For that matter what offends me as an American is the apparent loss of freedom of speech.

As a scientist the loss of resources in the form of varied thought and perspective to religious discrimination on both ends of the spectrum is disastrous.

It's funny, you put 10 people in a room and they don't pick a leader just someone to hate collectively.

We better figure out how to communicate with each other here before someone out there comes knocking to say hello.

SETI

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;


or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Despite the decisions of recent (within the last 40 years) activist Justices, the first clause only prevents the establishment of a state religion, such as the Church of England. The second part of that clause prevents Congress from passing laws restricting free exercise of religion by citizens.

You will find reference to the discussions regarding this clause in Eliot's Debates. The discussion on page 194, I think, best describes the attitude and intent of those who framed the Constitution:

But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of the excluded sects would comply with the test, and the best men only be kept out of our counsels. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own.

As you can see, the original framers and delegates who approved of the final version of the Constitution would not only disagree with the assumption that the Constitution precludes a free exercise of religion, even on federal land, they would be disgusted by the attitudes of those who subscribe to such a concept.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;


or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Despite the decisions of recent (within the last 40 years) activist Justices, the first clause only prevents the establishment of a state religion, such as the Church of England. The second part of that clause prevents Congress from passing laws restricting free exercise of religion by citizens.

You will find reference to the discussions regarding this clause in Eliot's Debates. The discussion on page 194, I think, best describes the attitude and intent of those who framed the Constitution:

But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of the excluded sects would comply with the test, and the best men only be kept out of our counsels. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own.

As you can see, the original framers and delegates who approved of the final version of the Constitution would not only disagree with the assumption that the Constitution precludes a free exercise of religion, even on federal land, they would be disgusted by the attitudes of those who subscribe to such a concept.

Good point.
I agree that religious expression on public land is more baiting than anything else. I do not believe that anyone has the right to force their way of thinking on me much less on land that I share with people of different beliefs. It's combative. That being said I dont see the claim to that right on the ammendment.

However on land you share with people of (own) and for the purpose of sharing those beliefs go to town. I'll mind my business as it occupies all my time. Let them mind theirs and leave me free to do alike.

---

I don't understand Hyland's post that rests 2 before this one. It seems you suggest in your arguments one thing but the quote you offer in support of it buttresses the other side....

Unconfuse me.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I don't understand Hyland's post that rests 2 before this one. It seems you suggest in your arguments one thing but the quote you offer in support of it buttresses the other side....

Unconfuse me.

I missed part of that too. I'm still chewing on it. I posted on the conspiracy thread on your cool small text. Just a lil joke. Thanks for the invite.

---

"There is only one God, but there are many paths that lead to the one."

I partly agree... There is only one God, but there is also only one path leading to Him... The Bible calls it the straight and narrow path and the Qur'an calls it the straight path... There are many churches and religions out there, some will lead you astray and some will lead you to that straight path... Reading the Holy Books for yourself is the only sure way to find that straight path if you so desire...

The Holy Books are very clear, all you have to do is stop listening to people and start reading them...

The New Testament consists of 27 books, most are very short...
The Qur'an is broken down into 30 relatively small parts...

Both can easily be read within a few months at most... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Some Muslims are signing marriage contracts
Women's rights issues often detailed

By Nahal Toosi
ASSOCIATED PRESS

August 26, 2006

Should anything go wrong in her marriage, Zaynab Abdul-Razacq is confident her rights will be well-protected. Her husband has guaranteed it – in writing.

The young Muslim couple chose a path advocated by Islamic scholars concerned about women's rights: drawing up a Muslim marriage contract that takes into account modern needs.

Abdul-Razacq's agreement states that she is in charge of the household finances and that if her husband abuses her in “any dimension of wellness” she can automatically divorce him. He stipulated that he could make decisions without interference from in-laws and other relatives.

“At the outset, we agreed these are things that are pretty important to us,” said Abdul-Razacq, 29, who lives in Decatur, Ga., and married three years ago.

The contract has long been a Muslim tradition. Most, however, contain just one key provision, that of the “mahr,” a gift usually of money, that the man gives the woman.

Islamic law experts who advocate for better treatment for women say the documents can help them assert rights under religious law that have long been played down by men. Advocates contend their approach is well within Islamic law, even though skeptics say the interpretation is too influenced by Western thinking.

Karamah, an organization of Muslim women lawyers based in Washington, is developing a “model” marriage contract that can be adjusted to meet the requirements of family law in different parts of the country, said Azizah al-Hibri, a founder of the group, whose name means “dignity” in Arabic. In the United States, civil law governs divorce, but judges have taken Muslim marriage contracts into consideration.

Al-Hibri, a law professor at the University of Richmond, Va., said the contracts also help couples prepare for the challenges of married life.

“Couples need to define their relationship as they enter the marriage, so that they do not get disillusioned later,” al-Hibri said. “They need a meeting of the minds on what their family life will look like. The contract helps them do that by discussing the issues up front.”

It's generally accepted that Islamic law gives women the right to property and financial independence within marriage. Some Muslims scholars contend women are not even obligated to do housework. These and other details can be specified in the contract.

Negotiating the agreement, “brings an air of reality and rationality to a process that is often fraught with emotion,” said Aminah McCloud, professor of Islamic Studies at DePaul University. McCloud's own marriage contract says that her husband must accompany her when she travels and that she is not obligated to cook.

Much of the negotiation involves the “mahr,” whose dollar value ranges widely.

Some Muslim women consider the gift archaic in an age when women can earn their own salaries. Others, however, view it as a symbol that the man values the woman, similar to an engagement ring; it's also a gift that is hers alone.

Beyond the “mahr,” the marriage contract can help address concerns about certain practices allowed in Islam, even if the behavior is forbidden by U.S. civil law.

For example, polygamy is illegal in the United States, but some conservative Muslims interpret their religion as allowing a man to marry up to four women. Many Muslim brides stipulate an automatic right to divorce if the man takes another wife.

Information about the contracts is available online, in women's magazines including Azizah, and at conventions such as the annual meeting of the Islamic Society of North America. Abdul-Razacq, who explored the contract at the insistence of her mother, consulted a book with sample documents called “Your Islamic Marriage Contract.”

---

me@rescam.org

Christians need to put art into moviemaking

By Terry Mattingly
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

August 26, 2006

Broadcaster Dick Staub thinks the gridiron drama “Facing the Giants” will be a hit in Middle America, in theaters far from the bright lights and nasty movie critics of the coasts.

As a veteran observer of Christians and entertainment, he's sure that born-again moviegoers will have tears in their eyes as the movie's salt-of-the-earth heroes conquer their fears, honor their parents, get saved, get healed and witness miracles on and off the football field. And since Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Ga., spent only $100,000 on its second indie project, Staub thinks it will make money for everyone else involved in this long-odds project.

However, he doubts that “Facing the Giants” will reach the unconverted, especially those in Hollywood power suites. Professionals who love movies are rarely impressed with the efforts of rookies,” said Staub, head of the Center for Faith and Culture and a part-time professor at Seattle Pacific University.

“If this film does make tons of money, Hollywood may distribute more of them. Do we really want to send the message to Hollywood that the kind of films Christians want will be characterized by poor acting, low production values that are inoffensive, make us cry and also make tons of money? Is this truly how we want to influence Hollywood for God?”

The movie tells the story of a downtrodden high-school coach whose life turns around with God's help.

The movie was created by two “media pastors,” brothers Alex and Stephen Kendrick, and includes numerous scenes related to religion.

It's true that many Christians find it hard to make movies – or any other form of popular art – without including blunt scenes of witnessing and evangelism, noted screenwriter Thom Parham, who teaches at Azusa Pacific University, an evangelical campus near Los Angeles. Thus they are often accused of producing manipulative manifestos.

The irony is that non-Christians have created many mainstream classics featuring Christian characters and themes, movies such as “Chariots of Fire,” “Tender Mercies,” noted Parham, in an essay titled “Why Do Heathens Make the Best Christian Films?”

Meanwhile, Christian companies have produced “The Omega Code,” “Left Behind: The Movie,” and similar niche-market products. “Overall, these films are unwatchable,” he said.

Far too often, concluded Parham, “Christian filmmakers seem to believe that they do not have to compete in the mainstream market. Thus, storytelling and production values end up taking a back seat to the movie's message.

---

me@rescam.org

I have said about the evangelical right that:

“They would vote for the Devil if he looked good in a suit and said he opposed abortion.”

I wonder if God would approve... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Approved by God

---

me@rescam.org

It's time for a debate about didacticism in art.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Approved by God

The rhythm was good, the moves fairly novel for the time I would say, the body language excellent, and the beat pretty good. But the vocals let it all down for me; the expressions were good but I failed to understand what it was all about. Whatever the approval was all about, I'm going to have to say "No".

---

flaming balloons

Approved by God

The rhythm was good, the moves fairly novel for the time I would say, the body language excellent, and the beat pretty good. But the vocals let it all down for me; the expressions were good but I failed to understand what it was all about. Whatever the approval was all about, I'm going to have to say "No".

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Approved by God

The rhythm was good, the moves fairly novel for the time I would say, the body language excellent, and the beat pretty good. But the vocals let it all down for me; the expressions were good but I failed to understand what it was all about. Whatever the approval was all about, I'm going to have to say "No".

---

flaming balloons