CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Islam...

[BugI02]

Frankly, this is disgusting. I do not approve of this sort of action. This is terrible and will harm the overall effort to make our society safer.

I would like to know the provenance of the handbill, though. After all, Trump was supposedly partnering with Neo-Nazi and Skinhead groups, too and that claim was bull****. Would want to know if it's true or if this is CAIR just dragging out the same old boogie men. Agree, though, that an anti-muslim march is a bit over the top. Anti-Sharia is a different story; don't target the people, target the political system masquerading as a religion

Not just Indiana, events in 28 cities in 19 states same day

From their website:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017, ACT for America is having March Against Sharia events in cities across the nation.

This is a march against Sharia law and for human rights. Our nation is built on the freedom of religion -- a pillar of our democracy -- which we must always respect, protect, and honor. However many aspects of Sharia law run contrary to basic human rights and are completely incompatible with our laws and our democratic values.


We, at ACT for America, are committed to protecting women and children from Sharia Law and its impact on Muslim women and children including honor killing and Female Genital Mutilation. We must ensure that every woman and child enjoy the protection afforded by the U.S. Constitution.

In their own words:ACT! for America Founded in 2007, it describes itself as "the nation’s largest non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots national security organization with 500,000 members and more than 1,000 chapters around the country ... committed to recruiting, training, and mobilizing citizens community by community to help protect and preserve American culture and to keep this nation safe." It identifies its central issues as confronting terrorism, securing the border, preserving the U. S. Constitution, energy independence, empowering women and protecting children, and support for Israel.

Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't like them, which makes me more inclined to like them

 

[jamil]

We need to redraw the boundaries on being non-profit. Somehow the dominant health care consortium in my city manages to be 'non-profit' and the pay the CEO $1.2million and all of the board make $500k+. When they built a new hospital in a fast growing suburb, they had 20' tall live trees growing in the main lobby's atrium. If you've got that kind of money that is not being directed at your primary mission/rationale something is very wrong

Dude, you're trying to **** me off arentcha. See, you knew this would set me off on a rant. You probably thought, hey. Here's an opportunity to wind jamil up.

Not much pisses me off more than walking into a lush Dr's office or hospital, except when I get the bill. These medical groups are all about extracting the most money possible from the most people in order to get the most people paid. I'm still pissed about that damn butt doctor, and the four layers of bureaucracy I had to go through just to get an appointment. They had a whole bulding dedicated to that. And the lady who finally, actually punched in the appointment in the computer had a lush office with a corner floor-to-ceiling window! And real office furniture, not that steel cheap stuff like is in my office. All that and all she does is key in appointment times for butt scoping, and print out prep instructions. You know they're rolling in dough when they have to invent creative ways to waste it.

 

[BugI02]

[snip] You know they're rolling in dough when they have to invent creative ways to waste it.

Truest words I've read on the internet today

 

[Bill of Rights]

Slight correction: The tomb of Jesus is the only tomb you've been told and have faith in having been empty, and either what we've been told Jesus said about being the only way to God is true or it is false. None of us know, none of us were there, and let's be honest here, I don't trust people with ulterior motives that much to entrust my eternity to them. Don't misunderstand me: I am a religious man. I talk to God often. I don't get answers in words, of course, but I have my faith. There's room in it for only two: Him and me. Others who want to believe similarly are welcome to make their own relationships with Him, of course, and most people I know have done so, in their own way.

Penn Jillette's quote is powerful, much as an Irish prayer I know is powerful:

May those who love us, love us;
and those who don't love us,
may God turn their hearts;
and if He doesn't turn their hearts,
may he turn their ankles,
so we'll know them by their limping.

Penn is an atheist, and his wanting people to proselytize is self-serving, in that it tells him who to engage in debate. He seeks them out, intentionally.

It's like telling people about smoking being harmful to their health: It's 2017. *Everyone* knows. I'm required to ask at work if patients smoke or otherwise use tobacco, and how much and for how long. I usually follow that up with, "So you've been smoking for X years... I'm sure you've heard the lecture, right? Good. Give it to yourself later, no one else is getting through to you."

For my part, I "proselytize" by living my life as I understand He wants me to live it. A quote from St. Francis: "Preach Jesus. If necessary, use words." Sure, I tell people what I think, but I never tell them my way is the only way.



Blessings,
Bill

I fully understand what you`re saying, I really do get that. However, by definition, there can only be one truth. The tomb of Jesus Christ is the only empty tomb, there is no other "god", pr prophet that has risen and is alive. So yes, someone is wrong, and someone is right. Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the father but by him. Either Jesus is wrong, or He is right. I`m betting my eternity on Jesus being right. Clearly you`re free to believe, or not believe, as you wish, just as I am, and as we all are.

This is a powerful, I think, quote by Penn Jillette:

“I've always said that I don't respect people who don't proselytize. I don't respect that at all. If you believe that there's a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward--and atheists who think people shouldn't proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself--how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?
“I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn't believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

 

[foszoe]

It is possible for me to know something that no one else does. It is possible for me to know something that is impossible for me to prove to another human being.

Not all knowledge is empirical.

Knowledge can also be experiential.

It is also possible to know something and not have any need to attempt proving it to someone else.

Just rereading St Franscis quote demonstrates precisely that.

 

[jamil]

Not all knowledge is true. Some people "know" the Earth is flat. Even today. For crying out loud.

 

[foszoe]

Not all knowledge is true. Some people "know" the Earth is flat. Even today. For crying out loud.

Did I say all knowledge though?

Not all empirically based scientifically proven knowledge is true either is it?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Slight correction: The tomb of Jesus is the only tomb you've been told and have faith in having been empty, and either what we've been told Jesus said about being the only way to God is true or it is false. None of us know, none of us were there, and let's be honest here, I don't trust people with ulterior motives that much to entrust my eternity to them. Don't misunderstand me: I am a religious man. I talk to God often. I don't get answers in words, of course, but I have my faith. There's room in it for only two: Him and me. Others who want to believe similarly are welcome to make their own relationships with Him, of course, and most people I know have done so, in their own way.

Penn Jillette's quote is powerful, much as an Irish prayer I know is powerful:

Penn is an atheist, and his wanting people to proselytize is self-serving, in that it tells him who to engage in debate. He seeks them out, intentionally.

It's like telling people about smoking being harmful to their health: It's 2017. *Everyone* knows. I'm required to ask at work if patients smoke or otherwise use tobacco, and how much and for how long. I usually follow that up with, "So you've been smoking for X years... I'm sure you've heard the lecture, right? Good. Give it to yourself later, no one else is getting through to you."

For my part, I "proselytize" by living my life as I understand He wants me to live it. A quote from St. Francis: "Preach Jesus. If necessary, use words." Sure, I tell people what I think, but I never tell them my way is the only way.



Blessings,
Bill

I know you're of Jewish decent. I don't know if you still hold to those beliefs or have come to be a Christian. If not, then this does not apply to you. But just to parse that last sentence a little: your "way" or my "way" is certainly not the only way and all likelihood not the best way to act in accordance with God. (We're all fallen, sinful, humans). But if you're a Christian and you're attempting to lead your life in such a way to bring others to God through Christ, if you're telling them there are other ways to the Father other than through the Son, you're misleading them.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Just calling your .org a non-profit shouldn't exempt from property taxes. If you're going to say churches shouldn't pay taxes because they more than make it up in helping the community it shouldn't be hard to show that the church actually helped the community.

As far as income taxes, it's probably not that hard to show no profits, especially if the church is really helping the community.

Yeah, I can show you our financial report...no abundance of cash laying around, no floor to ceiling atriums with living, mature trees in them. In fact we just were able to round up enough money to preserve the old stained glass windows.

I get it that many people don't like religion, churches, etc. I know you're not necessarily one of them. But from what I've seen and read, a lot of this is based on envy and motivated by atheistic-socialist desire to remove religion from the public by all means possible.

Then there's the bucket of crabs scenario. We can't/won't do anything about government spending so all we can do is rearrange the deck chairs when it comes to figuring out who's not paying their fair share in taxes. If one crab thinks another is getting out of the bucket, he'll drag him back in so that they'll all be just a miserable as each other. I get that too. We're all like that to some extent, I think.

 

[spencer rifle]

I would argue that churches contribute more to their communities than the cities would collect in taxes. If you want less money for feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, community outreach, etc. then by making them pay more in taxes is one sure way to do it. Of course, as we depend more and more on government "charity" to provide more goods and services, I guess it's natural to go glean the fields for tax money overlooked before.

I've addressed this here before, but government is the single most wasteful way to get anything done. In the summer my wife works for a government-run kid-feeding effort associated with libraries and parks. They are encouraged, no REQUIRED to waste food your tax money has paid for. If there is left-over food, the are required to throw it out, and that's enforced by supervisors, inspectors and security personnel. Hungry people (there are a few, it seems) have to watch while perfectly good food is thrown in the dumpster. Some staff have tried to get this changed (meanwhile being evaluated as not following procedure) and it looked like there was progress. The administrators promised to take the food to shelters/food banks (mostly run by churches). But it is still being thrown out.

I can't imagine any non-profit allowing this to continue.

 

[jamil]

Did I say all knowledge though?

Not all empirically based scientifically proven knowledge is true either is it?

This isn't really a good argument in favor of accepting what you call "experimental" knowledge over empirical knowledge. What you can observe and test gives a much higher, fact based confidence in the truth of that knowledge. Accepting a thing to be true by faith has no such basis of confidence. Your confidence is the faith you have. And that's fine. For you. It's just not for me.

 

[Alpo]

The argument that you've already been taxed isn't quite correct if you itemize deductions on your Federal return. If you take the standard deduction, such charitable contributions are factored into that deduction.

If you utilize city services, you should pay for them. Utilities, police and fire protection, snow removal on city streets, etc. If you don't use those services, you shouldn't be required to pay for them, but we do not operate in an environment that is pay-as-you-go. Collectively, we provide funds to the city for those services. If you do not like the way your money is spent, run for city counsel. A neighbor of ours did just that and it's been an eye-opening experience for him and the neighborhood. Let's just say we have a greater appreciation of the difficulties our city faces on a daily basis.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, I can show you our financial report...no abundance of cash laying around, no floor to ceiling atriums with living, mature trees in them. In fact we just were able to round up enough money to preserve the old stained glass windows.

I get it that many people don't like religion, churches, etc. I know you're not necessarily one of them. But from what I've seen and read, a lot of this is based on envy and motivated by atheistic-socialist desire to remove religion from the public by all means possible.

Then there's the bucket of crabs scenario. We can't/won't do anything about government spending so all we can do is rearrange the deck chairs when it comes to figuring out who's not paying their fair share in taxes. If one crab thinks another is getting out of the bucket, he'll drag him back in so that they'll all be just a miserable as each other. I get that too. We're all like that to some extent, I think.

I have nothing against churches. I don't want to seem them fail. I see a lot of benefit to communities that many churches bring. But in the post-modern age of dwindling Western individualism, it seems youth is turning away from organized religion more and more.

I also don't like property tax at all. I wish we'd abolish that as a means of funding local and state governments. But, if I have to pay it for my property, so should every property owner even if that owner is a collective group of organized churchgoers, or some charity, or the new factory that mayors and governors like to woo with property tax breaks. I think if any of them want to make a case for why the benefit of their operation is greater to the community than the amount they would pay in property taxes, I think that's a fair trade. Short of that my preference would be to eliminate property taxes.

 

[Benp]

I also don't like property tax at all. I wish we'd abolish that as a means of funding local and state governments. But, if I have to pay it for my property, so should every property owner even if that owner is a collective group of organized churchgoers, or some charity, or the new factory that mayors and governors like to woo with property tax breaks. I think if any of them want to make a case for why the benefit of their operation is greater to the community than the amount they would pay in property taxes, I think that's a fair trade. Short of that my preference would be to eliminate property taxes.

 

[foszoe]

This isn't really a good argument in favor of accepting what you call "experimental" knowledge over empirical knowledge. What you can observe and test gives a much higher, fact based confidence in the truth of that knowledge. Accepting a thing to be true by faith has no such basis of confidence. Your confidence is the faith you have. And that's fine. For you. It's just not for me.

Did you know or believe your mom loved you?

I am not certain of the following two but I think I have gleaned them from your other posts.

Do you know you love your son? Your wife? Or do you believe you so?

 

[jamil]

Did you know or believe your mom loved you?

I am not certain of the following two but I think I have gleaned them from your other posts.

Do you know you love your son? Your wife? Or do you believe you so?

It's not possible for me to "know" what's in my mother's head. At best I can use my own observations from her word and her deeds to come to a conclusion that she did. So I can say I believe she did.

The feeling of love is knowable, so I can describe my own feelings with better confidence. I can say yes, I know that I love my wife and son.

 

[foszoe]

It's not possible for me to "know" what's in my mother's head. At best I can use my own observations from her word and her deeds to come to a conclusion that she did. So I can say I believe she did.

The feeling of love is knowable, so I can describe my own feelings with better confidence. I can say yes, I know that I love my wife and son.

I'm sure you know where I'm going with this it is possible for you to know something that you simply cannot prove to somebody else

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm sure you know where I'm going with this it is possible for you to know something that you simply cannot prove to somebody else

We can look at the definitions of "Faith" from multiple sources, and we'd all be able to point out the common theme in them.

It's understandable that people exist that have trouble getting past that commonality.

 

[gregr]

Slight correction: The tomb of Jesus is the only tomb you've been told and have faith in having been empty, and either what we've been told Jesus said about being the only way to God is true or it is false. None of us know, none of us were there, and let's be honest here, I don't trust people with ulterior motives that much to entrust my eternity to them. Don't misunderstand me: I am a religious man. I talk to God often. I don't get answers in words, of course, but I have my faith. There's room in it for only two: Him and me. Others who want to believe similarly are welcome to make their own relationships with Him, of course, and most people I know have done so, in their own way.

Penn Jillette's quote is powerful, much as an Irish prayer I know is powerful:

Penn is an atheist, and his wanting people to proselytize is self-serving, in that it tells him who to engage in debate. He seeks them out, intentionally.

It's like telling people about smoking being harmful to their health: It's 2017. *Everyone* knows. I'm required to ask at work if patients smoke or otherwise use tobacco, and how much and for how long. I usually follow that up with, "So you've been smoking for X years... I'm sure you've heard the lecture, right? Good. Give it to yourself later, no one else is getting through to you."

For my part, I "proselytize" by living my life as I understand He wants me to live it. A quote from St. Francis: "Preach Jesus. If necessary, use words." Sure, I tell people what I think, but I never tell them my way is the only way.



Blessings,
Bill

It`s fine that we disagree, but, we do disagree.

 

[jamil]

I'm sure you know where I'm going with this it is possible for you to know something that you simply cannot prove to somebody else

Well, yeah, I know where you were going with it, but that wasn't a very good example, at least not in the way you asked the questions. It doesn't require faith on my part for either question. To believe or to know either one is possible for me, without elements of faith. And I can't prove to you what is in my own mind. You'd have to have faith that I'm telling you the truth unless you observe the kind of behaviors that support what I claim. But then, that situation isn't at all analogous to spiritual faith.

Speaking of, I can have the same confident belief that my mother loved me as I do that you have faith that God exists. I can observe what you say and what you do and conclude that you have faith. But that's not the problem. The problem is, neither of us can apply that same process to prove God exists. You can't prove that God exists by your faith that he does. You can only prove you have faith.

We can look at the definitions of "Faith" from multiple sources, and we'd all be able to point out the common theme in them.

It's understandable that people exist that have trouble getting past that commonality.

I'm uncomfortable saying that I have trouble getting past that, because it makes it seem like a hurdle that I should be able to get past. And I don't think of it that way at all. It's like the sliding scale of belief. Circumstances can be such that you suspect something to be true, or evident enough that you believe something is true, or proof enough that you know it's true. Those are fairly objective thresholds. I think it's fine for people to accept things as true based on a religious faith, but I would call that belief, not truth. YOU may believe it's true, but I may not.