I do. But your comparison to the mass violence of the Muslim extremist of the day to current day Christian terror was so over the top, there's not a name for it.

 

It's called hyperbole. And yes, it's every bit as ridiculous as you say. Really annoying isn't it? Consider my comments in this thread as my "counter" to the hundreds of other exaggerated topics we discuss over, and over, and over...and posters agreeing with the fear mongers simply because they are on "the same side". I'm just extraordinarily weary of the game.

It's called hyperbole. And yes, it's every bit as ridiculous as you say. Really annoying isn't it? Consider my comments in this thread as my "counter" to the hundreds of other exaggerated topics we discuss over, and over, and over...and posters agreeing with the fear mongers simply because they are on "the same side". I'm just extraordinarily weary of the game.

So it was hyperbole and you aren't on a side. got it.

I don't think we're being taken over by Muslim law, nor that Christians can make us a theocracy.

I assume you feel those supporting the impending takeover of our nation's laws my Muslims as fear mongering as well as what I stated about Christians?

 

I feel those who fear an impending take over of our nations laws by Sharia (however you spell it) are greatly taking for granted the protection wide spread gun ownership of law abiding citizens in the US has to prevent such tyranny. Gun ownership in the US and Switzerland would make the possibility of the rise of a tyrant in either nation very, very remote.

I feel those who fear an impending take over of our nations laws by Sharia (however you spell it) are greatly taking for granted the protection wide spread gun ownership of law abiding citizens in the US has to prevent such tyranny. Gun ownership in the US and Switzerland would make the possibility of the rise of a tyrant in either nation very, very remote.

 

And then, there's our Constitution as well...

I don't think we're being taken over by Muslim law, nor that Christians can make us a theocracy.

 

I also don't think Muslims will try to take over, I think the just want proverbial a seat at the table like Christians and Jews in being able to express their political views. So long as they do not push for laws which take away rights (as some European countries have said they have tried in their countries), I feel they have a right to express such political views.

Edited June 23, 201412 yr by Bert

And then, there's our Constitution as well...

 

I would argue it protects the constitution more so than anything. Per my own research of the history of the 2nd Amendment, those who pushed for the right to keep and bear arms to be included in the Bill of Rights had two motives. First to protect the right to defend ones self and second, to prevent the rise of an overly powerful/tyrannical government (from either within or an invading tyrannical government) which would toss the constitution in the shredder. Since those who were part of compiling the Bill of Rights had just ousted a tyrannical government, it was in their interest to put in measures to prevent another from entering the nation or one from emerging from within.

 

I mentioned Switzerland. I often wonder if it is a coincidence that during neither world wars, they were never invaded. Did the Central Powers during WWI and the Axis Powers during WWII purposely avoid Switzerland due to knowing that once you defeat their regular army, you have to deal with an armed citizenry and decide invasion was simply not worth it? They (particularily the Axis Powers) certainly didn't spare any of Switzerland's neighbors but simply negotiated with Switzerland.

 

On a more current basis. As ISIS continues to overtake more and more of Iraq, implementing Sharia laws (no drinking, women cannot be eductated, seen in public, etc.) they are also continuing Saddam's policy of their subjects not being allowed to arm themselves. It is difficult to impede fear, mass execution without trial and strip people of their rights when they can fire back at you.

Will science and religion ever peacefully coexist?

 

I think they can and do peacefully coexist for the vast majority.

 

Sure, some aspects can be questioned and debated but that's why religion has a "faith" component and is not always subject to absolute scientific proof.

I think they can and do peacefully coexist for the vast majority.

 

Sure, some aspects can be questioned and debated but that's why religion has a "faith" component and is not always subject to absolute scientific proof.

 

I agree. It is only those on the extremes of the topic who feel it is impossible for someone to both believe in God and Evolution.

I would argue it protects the constitution more so than anything. Per my own research of the history of the 2nd Amendment, those who pushed for the right to keep and bear arms to be included in the Bill of Rights had two motives. First to protect the right to defend ones self and second, to prevent the rise of an overly powerful/tyrannical government (from either within or an invading tyrannical government) which would toss the constitution in the shredder. Since those who were part of compiling the Bill of Rights had just ousted a tyrannical government, it was in their interest to put in measures to prevent another from entering the nation or one from emerging from within.

 

I mentioned Switzerland. I often wonder if it is a coincidence that during neither world wars, they were never invaded. Did the Central Powers during WWI and the Axis Powers during WWII purposely avoid Switzerland due to knowing that once you defeat their regular army, you have to deal with an armed citizenry and decide invasion was simply not worth it? They (particularily the Axis Powers) certainly didn't spare any of Switzerland's neighbors but simply negotiated with Switzerland.

 

On a more current basis. As ISIS continues to overtake more and more of Iraq, implementing Sharia laws (no drinking, women cannot be eductated, seen in public, etc.) they are also continuing Saddam's policy of their subjects not being allowed to arm themselves. It is difficult to impede fear, mass execution without trial and strip people of their rights when they can fire back at you.

 

Switzerlands armaments were probably part of the equation but just as much is their terrain.

I agree. It is only those on the extremes of the topic who feel it is impossible for someone to both believe in God and Evolution.

 

Agree.

So' date=' no one else worries about the internal threats to the American way of life? Threats to the Separation of Church and State? Infringement on the rights of minority faiths? Laws that bind all to consequences established on the foundation of one particular religious line of thinking? No one else questions the motives of politicians running on a platform that caters to only those who hold the same religious beliefs? No one else questions the sincerity, or purity, of what they are saying? Internal threats to our rights are much more dangerous than outside threats.[/quote']Yes! But I'm a heathen.

For those that don't think this country was founded primarily on Christian beliefs, one just has to look at the early settlers that came over. They weren't leaving England or other societies to ESCAPE religion, far from it. Many, if not te vast majority left so they could practice THEIR branch of religion without persecution

 

Roman Catholics were the first major religious group to immigrate to the New World, as settlers in the colonies of Portugal and Spain (and later, France) were required to belong to that faith. English and Dutch colonies, on the other hand, tended to be more religiously diverse. Settlers to these colonies included Anglicans, Dutch Calvinists, English Puritans, English Catholics, Scottish Presbyterians, French Huguenots, German and Swedish Lutherans, as well as Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, Moravians and Jews of various nationalities.

 

Many groups of colonists went to the Americas searching for the right to practice their religion without persecution. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century broke the unity of Western Christendom and led to the formation of numerous new religious sects, which often faced persecution by governmental authorities. In England, many people came to question the organization of the Church of England by the end of the 16th century. One of the primary manifestations of this was the Puritan movement, which sought to "purify" the existing Church of England of its many residual Catholic rites that they believed had no mention in the Bible.

 

A strong believer in the notion of rule by divine right, Charles I, King of England and Scotland, persecuted religious dissenters. Waves of repression led to the migration of about 20,000 Puritans to New England between 1629 and 1642, where they founded multiple colonies. Later in the century, the new Pennsylvania colony was given to William Penn in settlement of a debt the king owed his father. Its government was set up by William Penn in about 1682 to become primarily a refuge for persecuted English Quakers; but others were welcomed. Baptists, Quakers and German and Swiss Protestants flocked to Pennsylvania. The lure of cheap land, religious freedom and the right to improve themselves with their own hand was very attractive

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_colonization_of_the_Americas#Religious_immigration

 

Hey, and how about this? Huh, who'da thunk.

 

Religion in Early America

 

 

•Most states in early America had established churches

•Established Church: a church officially supported (and paid for) by the government

•Dissenters from established churches were tolerated but not always treated equally

•First Amendment originally limited only federal government, not state governments

•First Amendment contains two clauses on religion: Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause

 

First, we need to remember that when the First Amendment was drafted, most of the newly independent states of the United States already had established churches. These churches were the "official" religion in their colonies and were paid for by taxes collected by the government. Dissenters, or members of churches that disagreed with the established church, were tolerated in every colony, but they had to accept certain restrictions as a result of their religious choice. Many had to pay taxes to support the established church despite their disagreements with it, and many were barred from holding public office.

[/b]

 

Religion in Early America

 

Again here...not escape from religion, but FREEDDOM to PRACTICE their religion.

 

Land of Religious Freedom

 

The land that became America brought many of its first colonists hope for the freedom to practice their own religious beliefs.

 

Understanding Religion in America: Beginning Influences on the Colonies

 

Early colonists using the bible.

 

The reason early Americans became the most literate people on earth is because of their profound dependence on the principles and laws of the Bible as their guide for building a godly civilization in the North American wilderness.

 

Religion in Early American Education

 

One can agree or disagree with the principle, but the fact remains that early American settlers were far and away rooted in Christian principles and those principles helped govern everyday life and were EXPECTED to be woven into the context of government.

delete. Repeat post

Yes! But I'm a heathen.

 

But a civilized heathen LOL