A Question for all Religious posters

[rdean]

if you're religious and you don't put god ahead of the country, that's a very weak sense of religiousness. Christianity is explicit about having a loyalty for god ahead of that of country. In many cases, you can make the argument that worshiping your nation-state is a very substantial form for idolatry.

However, most religions teach that killing people is absolutely forbidden. Usually in the military the issue is that you'd be killing against your will and would rather listen to your religious beliefs than your duties to your nation. Shooting innocents randomly is an insult to both your country and god.

You can't be serious. Christianity is one of the most violent religions ever. Read the Bible.

Entire town wiped out and the women and children become sex slaves and all the married men and women put to death.

Seriously, read the Bible. Only the Koran is worse. Of course, since both religions claim Abraham as the founder, it's no surprise. Of course, he didn't found two religions, only one.

 

[Ravi]

I've been listening to many posters and radio personalities point out the Fort Hood shooter's comments about how he takes his religion and Allah over his Constitutional Oath and this country. It's presented as proof that the shooter was a traitor and a terrorist waiting to go off.

It got me wondering....how many religious posters take their god and their religion over love of this country? If you do, does that make you a potential terrorist for your religion?

I don't think it matters with everyday people...but people joining the military, the FBI, the CIA, etc...should have their first loyalty be their country. If they can't manage that, they shouldn't be let in.

Actually, that first loyalty is to our Constitution, so help them God - so they've promised God (as each knows Him) to do just that. If the country goes against the Constitution ("foreign and domestic"), they can go against the country.

(Yes, atheists can opt out of that phrase in an oath.)

And speaking of oaths and off-topic, I feel the same way about physicians who do the same - break their oath for religious reasons. Don't take the oath (and in cases where you swear to your god) if you can't keep it. It seems quite simple to me.

Jeesh, can't you just say you agree without quibbling?

 

[Ravi]

I've been listening to many posters and radio personalities point out the Fort Hood shooter's comments about how he takes his religion and Allah over his Constitutional Oath and this country. It's presented as proof that the shooter was a traitor and a terrorist waiting to go off.

It got me wondering....how many religious posters take their god and their religion over love of this country? If you do, does that make you a potential terrorist for your religion?

I don't think it matters with everyday people...but people joining the military, the FBI, the CIA, etc...should have their first loyalty be their country. If they can't manage that, they shouldn't be let in.

Interesting. I have read before that a lot of our FBI agents are Mormons...and have a network within the FBI of mormonism. Could that be something that could cause concern in the future?

I dunno...I don't know much about Mormons aside from the fact that RGS is a retard.

 

[Si modo]

I don't think it matters with everyday people...but people joining the military, the FBI, the CIA, etc...should have their first loyalty be their country. If they can't manage that, they shouldn't be let in.

Actually, that first loyalty is to our Constitution, so help them God - so they've promised God (as each knows Him) to do just that. If the country goes against the Constitution ("foreign and domestic"), they can go against the country.

(Yes, atheists can opt out of that phrase in an oath.)

And speaking of oaths and off-topic, I feel the same way about physicians who do the same - break their oath for religious reasons. Don't take the oath (and in cases where you swear to your god) if you can't keep it. It seems quite simple to me.

Jeesh, can't you just say you agree without quibbling?

You think that's quibbling? Can you not take it personally?

I suppose my bad for taking YOU seriously.

 

[Ravi]

Actually, that first loyalty is to our Constitution, so help them God - so they've promised God (as each knows Him) to do just that. If the country goes against the Constitution ("foreign and domestic"), they can go against the country.

(Yes, atheists can opt out of that phrase in an oath.)

And speaking of oaths and off-topic, I feel the same way about physicians who do the same - break their oath for religious reasons. Don't take the oath (and in cases where you swear to your god) if you can't keep it. It seems quite simple to me.

Jeesh, can't you just say you agree without quibbling?

You think that's quibbling? Can you not take it personally?

I suppose my bad for taking YOU seriously.

pssst...the little laughing emoticon means I'm just playing with you.

 

[amrchaos]

Let see

My country, My job, My family, my money, my friends, my education, my wants, my needs, my desires --hell, even some of the people I serious dislike all come before my religion.

Oh--I am an atheists. I rather lose a phiosophical arguement than kill or die for it.

 

[Si modo]

Jeesh, can't you just say you agree without quibbling?

You think that's quibbling? Can you not take it personally?

I suppose my bad for taking YOU seriously.

pssst...the little laughing emoticon means I'm just playing with you.

OK. My bad, again.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

if you're religious and you don't put god ahead of the country, that's a very weak sense of religiousness. Christianity is explicit about having a loyalty for god ahead of that of country. In many cases, you can make the argument that worshiping your nation-state is a very substantial form for idolatry.

However, most religions teach that killing people is absolutely forbidden. Usually in the military the issue is that you'd be killing against your will and would rather listen to your religious beliefs than your duties to your nation. Shooting innocents randomly is an insult to both your country and god.

You can't be serious. Christianity is one of the most violent religions ever. Read the Bible.

Entire town wiped out and the women and children become sex slaves and all the married men and women put to death.

Seriously, read the Bible. Only the Koran is worse. Of course, since both religions claim Abraham as the founder, it's no surprise. Of course, he didn't found two religions, only one.

I find it quite obvious to know that a literal interpretation of any book written 1400, 2000 or 5000 years ago is not possible without direct knowledge of the original works or the original language.

When you read the bible in that sense, taking into account the fact that it was most likely used for ages as a social control tool, edited and played around with by Kings and emperors... well, the violence makes a good bit of sense.

You don't need to give up your common sense or understanding of history to be a good Christian.

 

[bodecea]

if you're religious and you don't put god ahead of the country, that's a very weak sense of religiousness. Christianity is explicit about having a loyalty for god ahead of that of country. In many cases, you can make the argument that worshiping your nation-state is a very substantial form for idolatry.

However, most religions teach that killing people is absolutely forbidden. Usually in the military the issue is that you'd be killing against your will and would rather listen to your religious beliefs than your duties to your nation. Shooting innocents randomly is an insult to both your country and god.

You can't be serious. Christianity is one of the most violent religions ever. Read the Bible.

Entire town wiped out and the women and children become sex slaves and all the married men and women put to death.

Seriously, read the Bible. Only the Koran is worse. Of course, since both religions claim Abraham as the founder, it's no surprise. Of course, he didn't found two religions, only one.

I find it quite obvious to know that a literal interpretation of any book written 1400, 2000 or 5000 years ago is not possible without direct knowledge of the original works or the original language.

When you read the bible in that sense, taking into account the fact that it was most likely used for ages as a social control tool, edited and played around with by Kings and emperors... well, the violence makes a good bit of sense.

You don't need to give up your common sense or understanding of history to be a good Christian.

The same would apply to any holy book.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

You can't be serious. Christianity is one of the most violent religions ever. Read the Bible.

Entire town wiped out and the women and children become sex slaves and all the married men and women put to death.

Seriously, read the Bible. Only the Koran is worse. Of course, since both religions claim Abraham as the founder, it's no surprise. Of course, he didn't found two religions, only one.

I find it quite obvious to know that a literal interpretation of any book written 1400, 2000 or 5000 years ago is not possible without direct knowledge of the original works or the original language.

When you read the bible in that sense, taking into account the fact that it was most likely used for ages as a social control tool, edited and played around with by Kings and emperors... well, the violence makes a good bit of sense.

You don't need to give up your common sense or understanding of history to be a good Christian.

The same would apply to any holy book.

I agree. My main objection to Islam is merely the fact that it purports to be a political tool and a system of government.

The more purely spiritual religions (I guess mainly the ones found in India and China nowadays) are clearly non-violent and quite acceptable to most secularists. What I always took out of Christianity (and my interpretation may be quite wrong according to other Christians) is that Jesus was first and foremost concerned with inner spirituality, while condemning the legal/economic/political presence of the Pharisees and Romans.

 

[KittenKoder]

Good observation and response. One helpful hint if you don't mind. Core is spelled Corps.

Oh snap!

Not trying to start a fight but I work with a marine and he told me "its marine corps but in the statement Unit, Core, God, Country they say Core not corp.

I'm not a marine so i take his word on it .

Ok back to this cool topic

Not to nitpick (JK) ... Corp is pronounced "core" ...

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've been listening to many posters and radio personalities point out the Fort Hood shooter's comments about how he takes his religion and Allah over his Constitutional Oath and this country. It's presented as proof that the shooter was a traitor and a terrorist waiting to go off.

It got me wondering....how many religious posters take their god and their religion over love of this country? If you do, does that make you a potential terrorist for your religion?

Only if your religion teaches you to kill people. It's not much of a problem if your religion goes hand-in-hand with respect for the lives of others and for the ideals the US was founded on.

 

[Cecilie1200]

God comes first, then country. The problem isn't that he took "Allah over country", its that his religion demanded he commit treason.

Also, there is a difference between a religious person taking an oath to protect this country and just being a religious citizen who loves both God and country.

I hear what you are saying, however that distinction is NOT being made. I hear over and over again that the Shooter (can't remember his name this moment) stated on more than one occasion that Allah came before this country. How can that be a different statement than saying that God comes before this country?

I'm thinking you would have to show me the specific "over and over again" quotes you're questioning before I would be able to talk about them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, my duty to God supersedes my duty to my country.

And I have a small amount of sympathy for Major Hasan.

A similar situation would arise asking a Jewish soldier to fight a war against Israel or a Catholic to storm Vatican City.

But, if I was forced by religious conviction to abandon my oath to serve my country, I would be duty bound to suffer the consequences of that decision.

Of course, that would only come up if your country was asking you to do something sinful and immoral, in which case one would hope ANY decent human being would choose doing what's right above all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've been listening to many posters and radio personalities point out the Fort Hood shooter's comments about how he takes his religion and Allah over his Constitutional Oath and this country. It's presented as proof that the shooter was a traitor and a terrorist waiting to go off.

It got me wondering....how many religious posters take their god and their religion over love of this country? If you do, does that make you a potential terrorist for your religion?

I don't think it matters with everyday people...but people joining the military, the FBI, the CIA, etc...should have their first loyalty be their country. If they can't manage that, they shouldn't be let in.

Actually, that first loyalty is to our Constitution, so help them God - so they've promised God (as each knows Him) to do just that. If the country goes against the Constitution ("foreign and domestic"), they can go against the country.

(Yes, atheists can opt out of that phrase in an oath.)

And speaking of oaths and off-topic, I feel the same way about physicians who do the same - break their oath for religious reasons. Don't take the oath (and in cases where you swear to your god) if you can't keep it. It seems quite simple to me.

What oath, and in what specific case do doctors "break it for religious reasons"? Be specific.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've been listening to many posters and radio personalities point out the Fort Hood shooter's comments about how he takes his religion and Allah over his Constitutional Oath and this country. It's presented as proof that the shooter was a traitor and a terrorist waiting to go off.

It got me wondering....how many religious posters take their god and their religion over love of this country? If you do, does that make you a potential terrorist for your religion?

I don't think it matters with everyday people...but people joining the military, the FBI, the CIA, etc...should have their first loyalty be their country. If they can't manage that, they shouldn't be let in.

Interesting. I have read before that a lot of our FBI agents are Mormons...and have a network within the FBI of mormonism. Could that be something that could cause concern in the future?

I think all decent people should have their first loyalty toward doing what is right, because I don't want a situation where people are committing heinous acts and saying, "I was just following orders."

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've been listening to many posters and radio personalities point out the Fort Hood shooter's comments about how he takes his religion and Allah over his Constitutional Oath and this country. It's presented as proof that the shooter was a traitor and a terrorist waiting to go off.

It got me wondering....how many religious posters take their god and their religion over love of this country? If you do, does that make you a potential terrorist for your religion?

not unless they act like your guy's bestest bud bill ayers and try to blow innocent people to smithereens.. now would it?

Are you talking about Christian Right Wing terrorist Timothy McVeigh? How many did he actually kill?

Oh, spare me with the "Christian right wing" bullshit. I realize how badly you and your comrades want to stick us with Timothy McVeigh, but if we were stupid enough to actually buy that, we'd be among your comrades.

 

[Cecilie1200]

if you're religious and you don't put god ahead of the country, that's a very weak sense of religiousness. Christianity is explicit about having a loyalty for god ahead of that of country. In many cases, you can make the argument that worshiping your nation-state is a very substantial form for idolatry.

However, most religions teach that killing people is absolutely forbidden. Usually in the military the issue is that you'd be killing against your will and would rather listen to your religious beliefs than your duties to your nation. Shooting innocents randomly is an insult to both your country and god.

You can't be serious. Christianity is one of the most violent religions ever. Read the Bible.

Entire town wiped out and the women and children become sex slaves and all the married men and women put to death.

Seriously, read the Bible. Only the Koran is worse. Of course, since both religions claim Abraham as the founder, it's no surprise. Of course, he didn't found two religions, only one.

Which town? Wiped out by whom? If you're going to hurl accusations, you can at least be specific, so that we can verify just how full of shit you really are, instead of just having to assume it on the basis that it's you.

 

[xsited1]

I've been listening to many posters and radio personalities point out the Fort Hood shooter's comments about how he takes his religion and Allah over his Constitutional Oath and this country. It's presented as proof that the shooter was a traitor and a terrorist waiting to go off.

It got me wondering....how many religious posters take their god and their religion over love of this country? If you do, does that make you a potential terrorist for your religion?

It depends on your religion.

 

[bodecea]

I find it quite obvious to know that a literal interpretation of any book written 1400, 2000 or 5000 years ago is not possible without direct knowledge of the original works or the original language.

When you read the bible in that sense, taking into account the fact that it was most likely used for ages as a social control tool, edited and played around with by Kings and emperors... well, the violence makes a good bit of sense.

You don't need to give up your common sense or understanding of history to be a good Christian.

The same would apply to any holy book.

I agree. My main objection to Islam is merely the fact that it purports to be a political tool and a system of government.

The more purely spiritual religions (I guess mainly the ones found in India and China nowadays) are clearly non-violent and quite acceptable to most secularists. What I always took out of Christianity (and my interpretation may be quite wrong according to other Christians) is that Jesus was first and foremost concerned with inner spirituality, while condemning the legal/economic/political presence of the Pharisees and Romans.

And that is the the most important point I think...that we can see what happens when we allow a religion to dictate government. An unmitigated disaster for democratic principles and human rights.