Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?

[Annie]

I suppose an ultimate allegiance may supercede one's nation if one's religious doctrine says that their belief in their creator or higher power or god is the final, "say" in all things.

Having said that, one can still be patriotic, and not violate one's religion if the specific doctrine of the religion tells them to respect their fellow man, to obey the laws of their nation(as long as those laws do not violate their god's laws).

Apostle Paul always addressed the Roman leaders of his time with respectful title, and humility. He also emphasized in one or more of his epistles(books) that we/Christians should subject ourselves to the governing authorities as they have received their authority ultimately through God's permission. Therefore whatever God has allowed, is to be respected,......but.....if this ruling authority abuses it's God given authority, (because of the free-will of man to still do as he wants irrespective of his creator..i.e. Hitler, Stalin,), it nullifies or frees the Christian to disobey or give obedience to their God over prevailing earthly or national authority.
*
Sorry about the long sentence.
*
Also Jesus was put to "task" by the Pharisees over the paying of taxes to the Romans, or probably any ruling, governing power over the Jews at that time.

It was a "trick" question in order to prove to all that Jesus was a hypocrite. Jesus, merely picked up or held a Roman coin and asked all there, "Whose face is on this coin?". The reply, was, "Caesar's". Then Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's". The man was brilliant!! Why wouldn't God be brilliant?

Paying taxes aren't immoral in a sense yet possibly if they became so extreme that they literally endangerd the existence, of nation as a whole, there maybe something to be said in the area of morality.
*
Now, there is such a thing as civil disobedience. I grew up during the time of much unrest back in the 50's and 60's when many folks traveled to the Southern states to protest against segregation. At the time these states had ordinances/laws that truly divided one race from another. It gave partiality to white over black Americans. Now, those Freedom Riders, and bible Christians that went down there and were beat-up and maligned and even murdered were following a higher law, that superceded the laws of Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and many other states at that time.
*
Did Jesus come to free slaves from the bondage of the Romans and Jews........No, His ministry covered a spiritual realm of human life that superceded the physical conditions of individuals. He offered a freedom that allowed freemen and slaves to both be free in totality, not in physicality necessarily.
*
He didn't come to lead rebellion against a government, but actually a rebellion/war against a spiritual condition of man that had led to physical human bondage as it's outcome.
*
Jesus humbly walked to His crucifixion. If anyone had a right in human history to rebel, or say, "hell No, I won't go!", it was Jesus. He didn't. He submitted to the governing authorities, and was executed by that authority.

He did not mock Pilate, the governor, or spit back at the soldiers that ridiculed, and spit in his face. He didn't plead his innocence either.
*
I think that this reveals a major chasm between Islam and Christianity. Islam actually promotes a violent type of disobedience in obedience of a higher calling when their doctrine conflicts with prevailing authority. It is more of a Barrabus-type of response to injustice or religious conflict with governing authority.

Jesus had one possible time of release when He and Barrabus were offered before the Jews for clemency from death. They chose Barrabus, the patriot. The man of violence, the one who fought the governing authority with a sword and spear. They rejected the other rebel, that said, "blood just begets more blood. One who lives by the sword will die by the sword". Jesus was calling Jews to look to something greater than the nation or the Roman occupiers. He was trying to raise their spiritual eyes to the ultimate authority, and by doing this all the conflict on the human level would become moot to all submitting parties.

Barrabus's followers were patriots. They were Jewish patriots. They wanted the filthy occupying Romans out of their God given land. They saw only the sword as the answer.

Jesus's Apostles defeated the prevailing Roman occupiers by truth, and love. Roman sensiblities were brought to confusion by the humility of Christians as they walked to death in the colliseum in Rome. This love that the Christians had for the very one's that maligned, and hurt them was totally opposite of the Roman way of strength through force, weapons, discipline and great numbers.

Well, we know what happened to the patriotic jews. Their nation was steam-rolled over by the Romans in roughly 70 A.D.. The conquerers had enough of this upstart, prideful, little nation of monotheists.
*
Christians have been in the service of many nations for thousands of years, in many capacities. Some as soldiers, some as diplomats, actual leaders/presidents/premiers.

Some have risked their reputations and livelihoods to address "wrongs" and "injustices", knowing, and trusting by faith that their ultimate national citizenship would be after death, in their God's kingdom. This gave them courage to face death, rather than bow a knee to dictates or laws that went against their Creator's authorship.
*
Again, can this be said of Islam, if we remove the radical elements from their religion? I don't believe that the Koran encourages respect for people of other beliefs other than their own belief system, and it encourages no respect for governing authorities as long as those authorities are infidels.

Paul was respectful to Roman and Jewish authority as long as it didn't violate his God's laws. He/Paul did not differentiate between converted and unconverted when it came to respect of his fellow human beings. Can that be said of Muslims? Are they taught to live with respect for those that have a differing religious or no religious belief?

It appears to me, that radical Islam is not a sect that's out of balance with Islam, but actually a reflection or revealing of those who embrace Islam and actually live very closely by it's tenents. That means that the bulk or majority of Muslims that don't participate in terrorist acts or other violent acts as exemplified by 9/11 are actually not doctrinally living as Mohammed their prophet has taught them in the Koran.
*
As for Christians, more specifically,.....the ones that bomb abortion clinics, or protest at G.I. funerals, or scream for clemency for serial killers; they are actually living out a non-biblical/non-doctrinal cultic/sect type of Christianity that would bring much scorn from Paul, Peter, John, Timothy, titus, Luke, etc. of the New Testament.
*
It was Christians that promoted and maintained the underground railway that stealthily moved slaves to Canada back in the 1700's from the U.S.. They broke U.S. law. It was Christians that walked hand-in-hand with black Americans in the South when danger of life and limb wasn't far away. It was young and old biblical Christians that took the beatings of sherrif's batons in Mobile, along with their fellow, black Americans.
*
One attribute of God that you will not find in Islam. Try and find, "love". Islam can match eye for eye every Old testament and New testament attribute of God, but one.......and that is "love". Interestingly, love is the capstone of all of the N.T. letters/epistles. Paul says that love trumps every other great human attribute/trait. Without love, anything done or said, in God's name is worthless.
*
Have you noticed that the Islam that you see, revealed in the media, reveals a brotherhood, of love amongst like minded Muslims, but it does not extend beyond that unto God's humanity in total? Thats very revealing. It means in my opinion that ultimately, Islam cannot live in peace with prevailing government authority if it's lead by infidels, and it also means that under those circumstances, those Muslims living under that authority cannot be patriotic, without violating the very tenents of the prophet's teachings.
*

Considering myself a 'more perfect' American than Christian, while trying my best in both realms, I look at the 'laws' such as Roe v. Wade in the light of reality we must deal with. I will contact any candidate to make my views known. If there is an issue that helps to curtail/end that law, I would work in favor of such.

If a public officer votes for something I hold 'immoral', I will take a stand against them. Note they first have to be elected. I would NOT vote for anyone that made 'pro-choice' an integral part of their platform. Same for the death penalty.

 

[nt250]

Considering myself a 'more perfect' American than Christian, while trying my best in both realms, I look at the 'laws' such as Roe v. Wade in the light of reality we must deal with. I will contact any candidate to make my views known. If there is an issue that helps to curtail/end that law, I would work in favor of such.

If a public officer votes for something I hold 'immoral', I will take a stand against them. Note they first have to be elected. I would NOT vote for anyone that made 'pro-choice' an integral part of their platform. Same for the death penalty.

Try minding your own business.

Conservatives are examples of that except when it comes to abortion.

It's none of your business. The private medical decisions of strangers are not something you should ever concern yourself with.

It you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. But keep your nose out of other peoples business. Or call yourself a liberal.

 

[Annie]

Try minding your own business.

Conservatives are examples of that except when it comes to abortion.

It's none of your business. The private medical decisions of strangers are not something you should ever concern yourself with.

It you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. But keep your nose out of other peoples business. Or call yourself a liberal.

How about you just keep your nose out of my opinions? I have a right to think and vote as I like. So do you, it's what the country is about, or maybe your atheism has the best of you? It's a religion, you know?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That is in the eye of the beholder...

HAHAHAHHAHHAHAH

Yea, and in the eyes of the MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS risking their lives to get here. GET REAL IDIOT.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Try minding your own business.

Conservatives are examples of that except when it comes to abortion.

It's none of your business. The private medical decisions of strangers are not something you should ever concern yourself with.

It you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. But keep your nose out of other peoples business. Or call yourself a liberal.

Yep, mind your own business. Thats what people used to say when they were brutalizing and badly abusing their kids.

And I suppose you have no opinion on the issue of Priests molesting kids? I mean, you are suppose to mind your own business eh?

So, we are suppose to mind our own business regarding the baby in the womb?
(NOTE: You can spin it all you want, fact is, NOBODY ever asks a woman, "how is your fetus doing". Take a hint as to what word they use to describe the life inside her)

 

[Dr Grump]

HAHAHAHHAHHAHAH

Yea, and in the eyes of the MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS risking their lives to get here. GET REAL IDIOT.

Maybe those millions of millions think it is the greatest country. As I said, it is in the eye of beholder....

 

[nt250]

How about you just keep your nose out of my opinions? I have a right to think and vote as I like. So do you, it's what the country is about, or maybe your atheism has the best of you? It's a religion, you know?

Religion has nothing to do with it.

What others do with their own bodies is none of your business.

If you don't want people to comment on your opinions, don't post them on a public message board. That's also a pretty simple idea that seems to be beyond you.

 

[nt250]

Yep, mind your own business. Thats what people used to say when they were brutalizing and badly abusing their kids.

And I suppose you have no opinion on the issue of Priests molesting kids? I mean, you are suppose to mind your own business eh?

So, we are suppose to mind our own business regarding the baby in the womb?
(NOTE: You can spin it all you want, fact is, NOBODY ever asks a woman, "how is your fetus doing". Take a hint as to what word they use to describe the life inside her)

Only the baby in your own womb is your business. Anybody else's womb is their business, not yours.

And if you don't have a womb, shut the fuck up about it.

If men got pregnant there would be McBortions on every street corner and busy bodies like the right-to-life crowd would have to find another way to insert their small minds in the private medical decisions of others.

As far as priests molesting kids is concerned, homosexuality is another subject.

 

[roomy]

Only the baby in your own womb is your business. Anybody else's womb is their business, not yours.

And if you don't have a womb, shut the fuck up about it.

If men got pregnant there would be McBortions on every street corner and busy bodies like the right-to-life crowd would have to find another way to insert their small minds in the private medical decisions of others.

As far as priests molesting kids is concerned, homosexuality is another subject.

Do you still love me?

 

[nt250]

Do you still love me?

Of course I do.

 

[Nuc]

If a public officer votes for something I hold 'immoral', I will take a stand against them. Note they first have to be elected. I would NOT vote for anyone that made 'pro-choice' an integral part of their platform. Same for the death penalty.

Am I reading this correctly? You would not vote for anyone who is pro-choice, or who is pro-death penalty?

Interesting. Your choices will be somewhat limited because I would guess that most of the politicians who are pro-life are also in favor of the death penalty.

Admirable that you are taking a consistent point of view, however.

 

[Annie]

Am I reading this correctly? You would not vote for anyone who is pro-choice, or who is pro-death penalty?

Interesting. Your choices will be somewhat limited because I would guess that most of the politicians who are pro-life are also in favor of the death penalty.

Admirable that you are taking a consistent point of view, however.

I was a bit more nuanced, bowing to the inevitable, I was speaking 'after elections', *sigh*. You are right, it would be too narrowing. Perhaps even more depressing, once elected I haven't had much problem with my choices. So the politicians also cave to reality. No surprise.

 

[roomy]

I was a bit more nuanced, bowing to the inevitable, I was speaking 'after elections', *sigh*. You are right, it would be too narrowing. Perhaps even more depressing, once elected I haven't had much problem with my choices. So the politicians also cave to reality. No surprise.

Please have the courage of your own convictions, or die by your own hand.:bangheads We can agree to disagree.:tongue1:

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Maybe those millions of millions think it is the greatest country. As I said, it is in the eye of beholder....

No it is not in the eye of the beholder. its not a beauty contest.

Persons can have their personal opinion on whether or not they would like to live here or elsewhere, or if it would be the best country to live in for them, but for all practical purposes, by any measurable means as to quality of life and freedoms allowed, we are number one. And any country that even comes close can only thank us for not being under the Nazi or Jap rule.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Only the baby in your own womb is your business. Anybody else's womb is their business, not yours..

Sorry, it is the duty of the government to protect those who are not able to protect themselves.

And if you don't have a womb, shut the fuck up about it..

Oh yea, and if your not black, you shouldnt be able to vote on civil rights issues, and if you arent in a wheelchair, you shouldnt be able to vote on bills like Disabillity act.

If men got pregnant there would be McBortions on every street corner and busy bodies like the right-to-life crowd would have to find another way to insert their small minds in the private medical decisions of others..

If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

As far as priests molesting kids is concerned, homosexuality is another subject.

Priests molesting kids has nothing to do with homosexuality, so shut the fuck up. As usual, deadbrain liberals cant stay on topic and confuse the point of an issue. Just like with the abortion issue, its about the RIGHT TO LIFE for the baby, no other, NO OTHER right trumps the right to life.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Am I reading this correctly? You would not vote for anyone who is pro-choice, or who is pro-death penalty?

Interesting. Your choices will be somewhat limited because I would guess that most of the politicians who are pro-life are also in favor of the death penalty.

Admirable that you are taking a consistent point of view, however.

Implication being if you are pro life on abortion, and also in favor of the death penalty, then you are inconsistent. But that isnt true.

It is a consistent point of view if the philosophy you are following is trying to save as many INNOCENT lives as possible. It can be shown to be consistent in that regard in many examples.

 

[nt250]

Sorry, it is the duty of the government to protect those who are not able to protect themselves.

No it isn't.

Oh yea, and if your not black, you shouldnt be able to vote on civil rights issues, and if you arent in a wheelchair, you shouldnt be able to vote on bills like Disabillity act.

It's spelled "you're" as in you are. Sorry, I hate people who harp on spelling errors but this one has become so rampant on the internet that it really needs to be corrected before they change the spelling in the dictionary to accommodate idiots who keep misusing it.

I don't think you understand the difference between private and public. I also don't think you understand how laws get passed.

If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

And he would have no right to express an opinionon abortion.

Priests molesting kids has nothing to do with homosexuality, so shut the fuck up. As usual, deadbrain liberals cant stay on topic and confuse the point of an issue. Just like with the abortion issue, its about the RIGHT TO LIFE for the baby, no other, NO OTHER right trumps the right to life.

Oh, I'm a liberal? Gee. Most people call me a right wing nut.

When a man molests a boy, as is the case with the vast majority of priest molestations, that involves homosexual sex. You and all the other liberals can feign outrage at the prospect of the term "homosexual pedophile" all you want, but when a man has sexual contact with another male, it's called homosexual.

In my experience on message boards, the only people who object to the idea that some pedophiles are homosexual are those people who think pedophilia is a sexual orientation all it's own. That is, a pedophile is like everybody else. They're just misuderstood.

I am not exaggerating or being facetious, either. I have seen several discussions on the subject. Always started by a gay man, always worded very reasonably, and always discussed in a very serious fashion by many. Many nuts, in my opinion.

But then again I am a nut. I don't happen to think having your first sexual encounter at the age of 10 is normal. But many homosexuals do.

 

[Dr Grump]

No it is not in the eye of the beholder. its not a beauty contest.

Absolutely it is in the eye of the beholder. If somebody could go and live in the United States but choose to stay where they are, I'd say they don't think it is the best place to live in the world.

Persons can have their personal opinion on whether or not they would like to live here or elsewhere, or if it would be the best country to live in for them, but for all practical purposes, by any measurable means as to quality of life and freedoms allowed, we are number one.

Freedoms? No, not number one by a long shot. Quality of life...hhmmmm, I'd disagree on that, too. But in order for a meritable debate to ensue, you'd have to decide on your definition of quality.

And any country that even comes close can only thank us for not being under the Nazi or Jap rule.

There are a whole lot of other countries that would disagree with that premise. Russia for one....

 

[MissileMan]

When a man molests a boy, as is the case with the vast majority of priest molestations, that involves homosexual sex. You and all the other liberals can feign outrage at the prospect of the term "homosexual pedophile" all you want, but when a man has sexual contact with another male, it's called homosexual.

In my experience on message boards, the only people who object to the idea that some pedophiles are homosexual are those people who think pedophilia is a sexual orientation all it's own. That is, a pedophile is like everybody else. They're just misuderstood.

I am not exaggerating or being facetious, either. I have seen several discussions on the subject. Always started by a gay man, always worded very reasonably, and always discussed in a very serious fashion by many. Many nuts, in my opinion.

But then again I am a nut. I don't happen to think having your first sexual encounter at the age of 10 is normal. But many homosexuals do.

There is a difference between homosexual and pedophile though, and most people are reasonable enough to acknowledge it. But if your objective is to more precisesly classify them, how about "Catholic pedophile" for priests who molest children?

I apologize to the board's Catholics in advance. I am trying to demonstrate the absurdity of adding a tag to pedophiles that distracts from what they truly are...monsters targeting children.

 

[nt250]

There is a difference between homosexual and pedophile though, and most people are reasonable enough to acknowledge it. But if your objective is to more precisesly classify them, how about "Catholic pedophile" for priests who molest children?

I apologize to the board's Catholics in advance. I am trying to demonstrate the absurdity of adding a tag to pedophiles that distracts from what they truly are...monsters targeting children.

That's actually a very typical tactic of the left.

You object strongly to any negative connotation that is at all associated with homosexuals, but your first reaction is to attack Christians.

I'll never understand that. I'm an athiest so I don't have any respect for any religion, but I really don't understand why so many liberals hate Christians as much as they do.

They're not nearly as bad as Muslims but yet liberals go out of their way to defend Muslims when they would never think to ever defend a Christian.

The simple fact is that many homosexuals see nothing wrong with sex with children. They really don't. If you don't believe me go to any message board that has a lot of gays and liberals on it and ask this simple question:

How old were you when you had your first sexual experience?

I've seen these types of threads many times. Gays love to discuss sex so they always reply to them. (Hey, I like to talk about sex, too, but that's because I ain't getting any) And the average age for gays is shockingly young. Ten, eleven. That young.

I saw a thread that was started by someone who claimed to be a gay man. He had been around for a while and was pretty popular. Nice guy. Easy going. Told some pretty good stories. Well, he started this thread that said that pedophiles were simply misunderstood. He said that pedophilia was really nothing more than a misunderstood sexual orientation and that they shouldn't be sent to jail.

I thought it was a joke at first. Then I thought he was a fraud. A right wing nut who claimed to be gay, but then sprang this on the board as proof of everything the right had ever said about gay rights.

But it wasn't a joke and he wasn't a fraud. That thread got a lot of serious replies to it. Links to sites that backed up the claim that pedophilia was a condition. It was bizarre to say the least.

Homosexuality is not normal. No matter how much the gay rights movement objects to the reality of it, the reality won't change. All they can do is change the perception of that reality. They've done a damned good job of it when it comes to gay rights.

Sex with children is not far behind because many of them experienced it themselves and see nothing wrong with it.