What should the U.S. do about Sharia law and the killing of Christian converts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter seabird3579
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gilliam,
Actually, the population of the US considers itself a Christian nation. At least a nation based upon Christian principles. During pre-9/11 times we have taken a lot of flack about that. Since then the flack has slowly died down.
Actually, I have to disagree with that contention and the historical facts of the argument. Representative Democracy is, by it’s very nature, an anathema to Christianity/Catholicism. The religious orders I mentioned just mentioned are, monarchical. Look at our own church. No elections, no discussion, no compromise.
Jefferson and numerous others rejected these notions quite forcefully. Was Christianity a guide…I’d say yes…was it the basis for our nation…I’d say no.
I could provide many links but they would probably be naysayed by anyone who disagrees with the secular nation theory that I espouse.
Such is life.

John
 
BTW,
Regarding the original question posed by the thread…we should use every power we have to protect this man’s life. If not, we have already surrendered to radical Islam.
Actually, I’m self-censoring my true beliefs on this issue. Suffice it to say that i believe that we are in a cultural war.

John
 
40.png
john1863:
gilliam,

Actually, I have to disagree with that contention and the historical facts of the argument. Representative Democracy is, by it’s very nature, an anathema to Christianity/Catholicism. The religious orders I mentioned just mentioned are, monarchical. Look at our own church. No elections, no discussion, no compromise.
Jefferson and numerous others rejected these notions quite forcefully. Was Christianity a guide…I’d say yes…was it the basis for our nation…I’d say no.
I could provide many links but they would probably be naysayed by anyone who disagrees with the secular nation theory that I espouse.
Such is life.

John
We can argue the historical aspects all year and it will make no difference. I would only point you to this site from the Library of Congress, if you are really interested in the historical aspects. But they are of no consequence. I repeat: The US population considers us a Christian nation, or at least one built upon Christian principles. The US Supreme Court has even said our institutions were founded upon religious principles. Perception is what we were talking about here.
 
Again as a Christian, It would please me no end that the Lord would choose me to die for the faith. I know everyone has it in mind that life is good, but to die a martyr? Why on earth would we want to keep a saint from seeing our Lord? I am not being fatalistic here I am just confused I guess. Is it really so great here on earth, that we would deny a person the chance to become an instant saint?
 
gilliam,
I’d probably have to agree that many, if not most, Americans view us as a Christian nation, or one founded on Christian principles. Though the numbers are likely declining. (Pure conjecture on my part)
My question regarding our founding would be this, What were the choices? Christianity, in one form or another, was the dominant faith at the time, particularly among the English.
Every one, that I am aware of, of our founding fathers was raised in some sort of Christianity. That fact tends to skew the discussion a bit. I have always held to the contention that if our founding fathers had wanted this to be a Christian nation, they would have said so. They were very glib individuals.
However, I do accept your contention about perception.

John
 
Answering the original question…I’m not really sure what we can do…other than what we already have done (condemn in loud terms). I have heard that some countries have threatened to pull troops out if this man is executed. And I am not thrilled to know that American troops are putting themselves in harm’s way for this…BUT…if we withdraw, we definitely lose.

The President has said over and over…this is going to take a lot of time. It’s not going to be done overnight.

I don’t know…what does the OP think should be done?

Lisa
 
No way can Afghanistan stand on its own against the Taliban. We really have no choice. NATO stays put.

We condem in the harshest terms, we edify, we try to convince them to change the customs they have held for 1500 years. But we stay put.
 
40.png
gilliam:
No way can Afghanistan stand on its own against the Taliban. We really have no choice. NATO stays put.

We condem in the harshest terms, we edify, we try to convince them to change the customs they have held for 1500 years. But we stay put.
Agreed. I see no other choice. War and change is never simple or easy.

Lisa
 
40.png
seabird3579:
I thought the crusades were about taking back the holy lands and christian shrines.

Sharia law is a “method” of governing within a muslim nation. I don’t believe we should usurp sovereign nations and assume that they should govern as we do, but somehow Christian nations through diplomacy and sanctions maybe, should let these countries know that we greatly object to their abuse and murder of professed Christians.

It will be interesting to see if Christian nations will condemn this barbaric practice.
My comment was meant as irony… sorry you missed it…
 
For whatever edification it may be worth, there are two old saws: war makes for strange bedfellows, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Anyone who wants to be a moral purist will have a tough go of it in international relations. That does not necessarily mean that one must approve of the conduct and values of others when one joins in a venture, but one must accept that often one’s allies are too often the best of some bad choices.

One can play, for example, an almost unending game of “coulda, woulda, shoulda” about our alliance with Stalin during WW2, but the outcome in the European theater might have been well different had we not.

And then there are the most excellent choices we have made in getting in bed with some of the world’s scumbag dictators throughout South and Central America…
 
It will always and forever be about the oil.

When there is enough oil at stake in Africa/Asia we will go in and blame it on ruthless dictators persecuting Christians.
 
There is a very good article here. Some highlights:

Let’s start with a basic distinction that is typically lost, even when the president or members of his cabinet speak: we never did attempt to “nation build” in Afghanistan the way we did in Iraq. Rather, we deposed the Taliban, encouraged Hamid Karzai to run for president, and that was about it.

It was hardly a democratic election, in the sense of a campaign with strong, competitive candidates from different parties. Karzai became the Chairman of the Transitional Administration about a month after we booted out the Taliban; the Loya Jirga appointed him Interim President in June, 2002; and in the 2004 elections, Karzai crushed his 22 “opponents,” winning 21 of the 34 provinces, despite worries that he had no support outside the capital, Kabul. Karzai is to Afghanistan as George Washington was to the United States of America, or as Ho Chi Minh was to Vietnam (how’s that for a comparison?)…

If Rahman is executed, Bush should call a press conference to report the tragedy (so it won’t look like he’s trying to hide anything), but then make the point that we are not trying to turn Afghanistan into a democracy the way we are in Iraq. He can express disappointment and even anger in the decision… but he should still note that, brutal as it may be, neither the Taliban nor al-Qaeda control Afghanistan anymore, and that is what we set out to do. We have not invested in democracy in Afghanistan; our national honor is not at stake here.



A reader of his commented:

Don’t forget this was a fully sanctioned mission of the UN who were to assume responsibility in two areas; the first being in Relief, Recovery and Reconstruction. The second, the electoral process, Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) as well as the verification of the exercise of political rights related to elections as well as human rights, respectively.

This was formally commissioned UNAMA(United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan) March 2002.
 
40.png
john1863:
gilliam,Actually, I have to disagree with that contention and the historical facts of the argument. Representative Democracy is, by it’s very nature, an anathema to Christianity/Catholicism. The religious orders I mentioned just mentioned are, monarchical. Look at our own church. No elections, no discussion, no compromise.
Jefferson and numerous others rejected these notions quite forcefully. Was Christianity a guide…I’d say yes…was it the basis for our nation…I’d say no.I could provide many links but they would probably be naysayed by anyone who disagrees with the secular nation theory that I espouse.Such is life.John
This issue was discussed in a thread in this forum within the past year. One respondent was able to show quite well that the Church’s support for a democratic form of government goes back for at least a century or more. A monarchy can be a democratic or representative form of government. England being a modern example. France’s form of democracy during the Enlightenment would have been unacceptable.
 
Ted CharlotteNC:
It will always and forever be about the oil.

When there is enough oil at stake in Africa/Asia we will go in and blame it on ruthless dictators persecuting Christians.
Even though it’s off topic, please tell us how much oil we get from Afghanistan.
 
Ted CharlotteNC:
It will always and forever be about the oil.

When there is enough oil at stake in Africa/Asia we will go in and blame it on ruthless dictators persecuting Christians.
Really? Can you give us some evidence of this?

As far as afghans persecuting Christians it looks like this was handled exactly right -quite diplomacy and the man will soon be freed.

I do find it amazing that we have found the one place in the world where people hate Christians more than the ACLU does!
 
Ted CharlotteNC:
It will always and forever be about the oil.

When there is enough oil at stake in Africa/Asia we will go in and blame it on ruthless dictators persecuting Christians.
Where’s the oil in Afghanistan?
 
Getting back on topic before we were derailed, let’s discuss the OP’s question.

I think we plead with the Afghanistans, and other countries should do the same. If they persist I do believe it will be the biggest mistake they ever made and it would go in our favor. He would be a saint immediately, and they could have a revolution on their hands. There is nothing like a martyr to get things all stirred up. Now, I don’t want him to die and I believe he is so brave. I think we all have to ask ourselves if we could do the same.
 
40.png
Fitz:
Ireland, for one.
Heh, yea… Thanks for the mention, but, Gilliam, why must you neglect the developing, and very religious, nations of Southern and Central America? And those in Africa? Or the Phillipines? And come to think of it, I mentioned two ares with a very large Catholic majority, and another with a sizeable amount, of course, Protestants, bar America, attend Church services less often (For example, Germany, Britain, the Northern countries) then there are those who have been destroyed by Communism - More people in the Czech Republic believe in UFOs than in God. Albeit, Poland and their neighbours, Slovakia, are still somewhat religious (A bit below that of, Ireland, for example - which is why we love the Poles, there are between 80,000 and 100,000 of them here now). Then you have France, in the late 1700s, abandoned religion when it came to politics, and you can see their sorry state now, this, in conjunction with bordering largely Protestant nations, has had a knock on affect to Belgium.

Why do you count Ireland as insignificant when he stated “all Christian countries”?

rwoehmke: Yes, the form of government which encompasses a parliamentary system and a monarchy, in a democratic fashion, is a Constitutional Monarchy: Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, The United Kingdom not England - England is a Constituent Country, not a sovereign nation, there are three Constituent Countries in the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and England. Scotland has its own parliament, Wales has its own Assembly (As does N.Ireland, though at the moment it is not in use, due to Unionist stalling tactics, and also it is not a Constituent Country), while England has nothing. It does, however, contain the parliament for the entirety of the United Kingdom, which represents all Constituent Countries, semi-autonomous provinces (N.Ireland) and over-seas territories - It doesn’t represent England solely, and is not an English parliament. Don’t call the United Kingdom “England”, it is a common mistake (Though I’ve heard English people adamantly say that it’s mostly Americans make it)

America helped to remove a despotic government from that country. With the aid of several other nations. Unlike Iraq, everyone agreed with this invasion. But you quickly exited, for what? Iraq. And now you’re stuck in Iraq, with, at present, American politicians repeatidly using one common phrase “Exit Strategy”, which it looks like you’ve been there longer than American politicians expected, and wanted, and will be there, most likely, for some time. I believe, it is your responsibility, to make sure things run smoothly, democratically and fairly in that country - You can not run into a country, remove its government, and resolve all their problems, miraculously, by staging quick elections, then run off and ignore that country, and their problems. What if some despotic Communist dictator gained control? Would you ignore him? What if it were the Taliban, again? It is your responsibility.

All the nations with troops in Afghanistan, all nations who helped to free them from the tyrannical Taliban and all Christian nations accross the world should put pressure on Afghanistan to stop this. You freed them, they owe everyone involved a favour (Though you cannot specifically say America, as America would’ve just ignored Afghanistan were it not for the eleventh of September, 2001, which is why I shall refer to it collectively)
 
40.png
geezerbob:
Even though it’s off topic, please tell us how much oil we get from Afghanistan.
The issue as I understand it is not getting oil from Afghanistan as it is getting a pipeline through Afghanistan fro Uzbecistan, etc., the three or four countries to the general north.

None of which has to do with the Taliban; we tried to negotiate with them too. It might be well to remember that the CIA was supplying the Taliban with weapons when the Russians were marching all over the place.

The situation deteriorated to war when the Taliban told pakistan to shove it, re: Osama bin Laden.
 
40.png
Zerith:
America helped to remove a despotic government from that country. With the aid of several other nations. Unlike Iraq, everyone agreed with this invasion. But you quickly exited, for what? Iraq.)
We are still in Afghanistan. What are you talking about?
40.png
Zerith:
And now you’re stuck in Iraq, with, at present, American politicians repeatidly using one common phrase “Exit Strategy”, which it looks like you’ve been there longer than American politicians expected, and wanted, and will be there, most likely, for some time. I believe, it is your responsibility, to make sure things run smoothly, democratically and fairly in that country - You can not run into a country, remove its government, and resolve all their problems, miraculously, by staging quick elections, then run off and ignore that country, and their problems. What if some despotic Communist dictator gained control? Would you ignore him? What if it were the Taliban, again? It is your responsibility…
We will be in the Middle East permanantly I think. We have been in Germany, how long? Korea, how long? I guess it really becomes less of an issue when our troops are greatly reduced. Most people don’t realize that we never left the Persian Gulf after the first Gulf War. We have been stationed there ever since. We have been involved in piracy isssues off the coast of Somalia for a long time too. No one complains about that though, especially those companies that are protected on the high seas by us and other nations also.
40.png
Zerith:
All the nations with troops in Afghanistan, all nations who helped to free them from the tyrannical Taliban and all Christian nations accross the world should put pressure on Afghanistan to stop this. You freed them, they owe everyone involved a favour (Though you cannot specifically say America, as America would’ve just ignored Afghanistan were it not for the eleventh of September, 2001, which is why I shall refer to it collectively)
We are all protesting. In the end, the Afghanistan goverment can ignore all of us. That is what happens. We don’t control them. We can advise, and perhaps they do owe all of us (collectively of course), but they can be independent of us and exert their will. It would be a very dumb move and a tragic one. I would like the man to live to become a saint in due time…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top