Religion And Politics

[Advisor]

Originally posted by 39mto39g Advisor
It is kind of your job, as a follower of Jesus . Just as it is the Job of Muslims to denounce the Extremest, you should also speak up and say that these people don't speak for me, Just as you did to me.

No it's not. If I have a problem with another believer, I should talk with them personally. If that is not possible, the only thing I can do is pray for them. And, I have to live my life in a way that shows others that all Christians are not like that.

[Keith_Hixson]

There is a difference between Muslim and Christianity. We generally understand that government and church are separate. To the Muslim, the vast majority, religion and government are the same. They expect their religion to control the government and that the clerics in the Muslim religion almost always get their way with the government. So, with that in mind, having a Muslim in the White House has the potential for much greater disaster to the nation than a Catholic or a Baptist.
Muslim just don't have the same "world view" as Christianity. And, that being said, I would certainly would have to think about it a long time before I'd vote for a Muslim on anything, even if I agreed with him politically.

Keith

[39mto39g]

Neil
Go away

[SuperScout]

Studying the Mormon cult as I have been for the past several years, I could not vote for a Mormon candidate, simply because I think their entire reasoning process is flawed. Anybody who can believe that the Native Americans are descended from Reformed-Egyptian-speaking Hebrews, who rode elephants and horses in Meso-America, building vast cities and manufacturing steel weapons and tools, all claims without any archaeological, historical, forensic, or anthropological proof, is too far out for me. All things considered, Mormons are not Christians. They may make claims that they are, even citing the name on their buildings; to which I reply, "I can paint 'Nuclear Bio-Chemical Research Laboratory' on my outhouse, but that doesn't make it a research facility."

[39mto39g]

Kieth
The difference between Muslims Bombing and Killing people and Christan's Bombing and killing people is just geography.
How many people have been killed in Ireland By Protestants and then retaliation killing and Bombing by Catholics.
Christan's have been Killing each other for Thousands of years. And Being killed because they were Christan.


Advisor
Ok, It's not, Then you also condone the action of a group saying that they wouldn't vote for someone because of there religious preference?

Ron

[reconeil]

"Neil
Go away".........????????? You The Patfiles Censor?

What's-a-matter boobsy, wousse or baby-kins??
Nasty-Wasty Neil somehow hurt your sensitive feelings by
implying that no religion on earth should be compared to
Fanatically Murderous Islam?
Voting for one such would be totally absurd TO-THE-MAX.

Hell,...MANY Muslim Nuts even mass-murder THEIR VERY OWN,
if not religiously following orders or toeing-line-to-the-T.
Muslim Prelates closer to Old Nazis,...than anything else.

Plus, any Good Muslims are too-damn-intimidated & threatened
to make a difference, anyway.
Worked pretty-much sameO-sameO for Good Germans of the
past,...ALSO.

Neil

[Keith_Hixson]

Is a whole different situation. It has nothing to do with religion and never did.
Protestant England ruled Northern Ireland.
Catholic Ireland ruled the Rest of Ireland.

Hence the Catholic / Protestant war.
It really was a war between England and Ireland (radicals) for the control of Northern Ireland. It really was a political war that just happened to get stuck with the religious labels.

In fact most good Catholics and most good Church of England folks highly resented the fact that it was "nick named" a religious war.

Keith

[Keith_Hixson]

Just a quick history of the situation in Ireland.

To give a quick overview of history, in 1690--back in the days when the Holy Roman Empire really was an empire--Protestant William of Orange defeated Catholic King James II. For the next 300 years or so, Catholics of Ireland were discriminated against in one way or another because, as everywhere else, to the victors--those loyal to the British/Protestant throne--went the spoils. The small number of Irish who always demanded independence eventually became known as "nationalists." Of those, some saw violence as the only way to achieve their freedom. They would become known as "republicans."

In 1921, Britain agreed to the creation of an Irish state, but only if it kept a small section of the island known as Ulster. The majority in Ulster were Protestant and considered themselves to be British--to the point that a few years earlier, they'd threatened to start a civil war at the prospect of being abandoned to the Irish. Also, Ulster's capital, Belfast, was the world's leader in shipbuilding, linen and rope making. With Her Majesty's Navy circling the globe and preeminence in international commerce at stake, the United Kingdom was not about to lose Ulster. In the new Republic, the split was controversial before it happened: Irish hero Michael Collins was assassinated for his agreement to the partition. In Ulster, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Except, of course, to Catholics who remained an oppressed minority.

But the very reasons for keeping Ulster British were the seeds of disaster.

Over time, Her Majesty did not rule colonies around the world, so she didn't have the need for a huge navy, and there were other ways to transport passengers and goods. Then, with no need for ships, there was no need for rope or linen. Suddenly, a man with 15 years in a skilled trade faced lifelong unemployment. For his sons, prospects were worse: never getting a job to begin with. The speed with which this occurred was breathtaking: Forty-year-olds remember growing up when thousands (mostly Protestants/British) worked in the shipyards. Only a few hundred, if that, still work in the yards. And since the rest of the economy had relied on shipping, the Protestant/British community was devastated economically.

On the Catholic side, they never had anything to begin with, so the loss of industry didn't hit them as hard. All they had--good Catholics that they were--were people. But that meant Catholics' already impoverished circumstances were getting worse. There were more Catholics, and they were getting angrier.

Meanwhile, the Protestants/British were terrified. The native industry was gone; the rest of the United Kingdom was propping them up economically. And nationalists wanted to unite with Ireland. Ireland--with its only export being immigrants who fled the country each year--had an economy that made Northern Ireland's look sterling by comparison. Add to that "Irish rule was Rome rule": Ireland forbade divorce, birth control and followed papal decrees to the letter. It would no doubt discriminate against Ulster Protestants; it would strip them of the little they had left. Their only hope was to be "unionist," to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Tens of thousands, poor, angry and feeling powerless. It was a powder keg just waiting to explode.

The fuse was first lit not in the Republic of Ireland but the southern United States. Throughout the 1960s, while reading newspaper want ads saying "No Catholics," Catholics in Northern Ireland watched the American civil rights movement. They said, "We have a dream, too." And they, too, took to the streets.


The war shouldn't be called Catholic vs Protestant but Ireland vs England.

Keith