A Question for all Religious posters

[ThePickledPunk]

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?

If you follow your statement that you love God over Country with a shooting spree designed to fulfill that preference- then there would be no difference.

 

[Smartt33]

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 will respond before I read on to the other posts.

The question is kind of tricky, not intentionally I am sure.

I believe I take my God and my "faith" over any other loyalty.

 

[Smartt33]

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?

This man and his relition are trumping God. God has nothing to do with what the radical muslims are doing around the world.

I don't believe we can take our "religion" over the constitution. I do believe we can take our relationship with God over our constitution. I also don't believe God will lead us to violate any moral laws, as does the Muslim Allah, if He is the one who is leading these people to murder.

I would say the same thing about anyone who says they kill in the name of Almighty God. They are just wrong, and God is not in it. Everytime there was a death that God demanded, He always took a major role in carrying it out. He is justified, even when we cannot figure out why.

 

[Ryan]

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?

Awesome question Bodecea. Its one I can't really answer 100% for you as I dont follow any religion, I just believe in a higher power and Karma.

That being said I would put what i feel are my karmic obligations to my fellow man above my love of country.

I'm also not saying that the fort hood guy did it because he was a Muslim as part of some "muslim conspiracy" against america. I think that line of thinking is wrong...the guy was a psycho, who was muslim, and couldn't handle being a muslim and a soldier.

As the Marines say: Unit, Core, God, Country

As a former Marine, it was "God, Country and Corps" I never run across the above version. Would the unit have contrary interests to the the rest of the Corps?

 

[KittenKoder]

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?

Awesome question Bodecea. Its one I can't really answer 100% for you as I dont follow any religion, I just believe in a higher power and Karma.

That being said I would put what i feel are my karmic obligations to my fellow man above my love of country.

I'm also not saying that the fort hood guy did it because he was a Muslim as part of some "muslim conspiracy" against america. I think that line of thinking is wrong...the guy was a psycho, who was muslim, and couldn't handle being a muslim and a soldier.

As the Marines say: Unit, Core, God, Country

As a former Marine, it was "God, Country and Corps" I never run across the above version. Would the unit have contrary interests to the the rest of the Corps?

Bah! I always forget the 's' ... don't know why I do, I just do.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

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.

I don't think any god would create life to have it destroyed by his other creations... that's the work of government, not religion.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

I don't think any god would create life to have it destroyed by his other creations... that's the work of government, not religion.

Then nothing would have to eat.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oft times, destruction is simply the result of life itself. Whether it is a flaw or not, it's what keeps the cycles of life going, for without life, there is no death, and without death, no new life can grow. I'm sure there's a little Hindu or Buddhist in that proverb, but mine is from an even older source.

 

[Kalam]

Which town?

Midian.

Wiped out by whom?

Moses. The poster forgot to mention that, according to the Biblical account, only the little girls were taken by the soldiers "for themselves." The male children were killed along with the rest of the inhabitants.

Fortunately, most Christians and Jews have decided to ignore passages such as this.

 

[Kalam]

In response to the OP, I don't take any oaths that contradict my religious beliefs. That being said, I see nothing wrong with Muslims serving in the US military so long as they don't participate in aggressive warfare, kill innocents, or kill Muslims except in self-defense. Thousands of people are able to handle the supposed contradiction of being a Muslim as well as an American soldier.

 

[rdean]

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.

Respect for the lives of others?

You can't possibly be talking about Christianity.

 

[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.

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

The oath of federal service (and military service, which is a touch different).

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

5 U.S.C. §3331​

The Hippocratic oath and when physicians refuse to prescribe BC and/or order D&C for risk to the mother, for example.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

The oath of federal service (and military service, which is a touch different).

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

5 U.S.C. §3331​

The Hippocratic oath and when physicians refuse to prescribe BC and/or order D&C for risk to the mother, for example.

Here is the problem, and it's the same for religious zealots so I am not picking on you , you are assuming that religion is suppose to be a strict set of "if then's" ... it's not suppose to be. It's a foundation of faith in something "bigger" than the world, to give you hope and encourage you to be better. The twisted forms you see zealots take it to is not what true religion is about. So you must define which religion and the "type" of follower, before you can make a connection at all.

 

[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.

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.[/QUOTE]

Ignorant tick.

My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out. (Exodus 23:23 NAB)

Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Point your spear toward Ai, for I will give you the city." Joshua did as he was commanded. As soon as Joshua gave the signal, the men in ambush jumped up and poured into the city. They quickly captured it and set it on fire. When the men of Ai looked behind them, smoke from the city was filling the sky, and they had nowhere to go. For the Israelites who had fled in the direction of the wilderness now turned on their pursuers. When Joshua and the other Israelites saw that the ambush had succeeded and that smoke was rising from the city, they turned and attacked the men of Ai. Then the Israelites who were inside the city came out and started killing the enemy from the rear. So the men of Ai were caught in a trap, and all of them died. Not a single person survived or escaped. Only the king of Ai was taken alive and brought to Joshua.

When the Israelite army finished killing all the men outside the city, they went back and finished off everyone inside. So the entire population of Ai was wiped out that day – twelve thousand in all. For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed. Only the cattle and the treasures of the city were not destroyed, for the Israelites kept these for themselves, as the LORD had commanded Joshua. So Ai became a permanent mound of ruins, desolate to this very day. Joshua hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset the Israelites took down the body and threw it in front of the city gate. They piled a great heap of stones over him that can still be seen today. (Joshua 8:1-29 NLT)

When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything. (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)

Don't get me started. I could go on another couple of hundred quotes. I had to go to that damn Christian school and Sunday school as a kid. I managed to grow out of that nonsense.

 

[Si modo]

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

The oath of federal service (and military service, which is a touch different).

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

5 U.S.C. §3331​

The Hippocratic oath and when physicians refuse to prescribe BC and/or order D&C for risk to the mother, for example.

Here is the problem, and it's the same for religious zealots so I am not picking on you , you are assuming that religion is suppose to be a strict set of "if then's" ... it's not suppose to be. It's a foundation of faith in something "bigger" than the world, to give you hope and encourage you to be better. The twisted forms you see zealots take it to is not what true religion is about. So you must define which religion and the "type" of follower, before you can make a connection at all.

As the oath does not address religion at all, rather a belief in a god (or that part can even be stricken for atheist servants), the oath eliminates any question of primary loyalty. If one believes in a deity, they swear to that deity to be loyal to the Constitution.

Religion and belief are not the same.

Now, if one's religion allows for a loophole(s) for lying to one's god, we've got a problem.

 

[HUGGY]

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'm a ticking time bomb

 

[KittenKoder]

The oath of federal service (and military service, which is a touch different).

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

5 U.S.C. §3331​

The Hippocratic oath and when physicians refuse to prescribe BC and/or order D&C for risk to the mother, for example.

Here is the problem, and it's the same for religious zealots so I am not picking on you , you are assuming that religion is suppose to be a strict set of "if then's" ... it's not suppose to be. It's a foundation of faith in something "bigger" than the world, to give you hope and encourage you to be better. The twisted forms you see zealots take it to is not what true religion is about. So you must define which religion and the "type" of follower, before you can make a connection at all.

As the oath does not address religion at all, rather a belief in a god (or that part can even be stricken for atheist servants), the oath eliminates any question of primary loyalty. If one believes in a deity, they swear to that deity to be loyal to the Constitution.

Religion and belief are not the same.

Now, if one's religion allows for a loophole(s) for lying to one's god, we've got a problem.

Most religions teach you honor your vows, actually I can't think of one that doesn't. Love for ones gods is very different than this type of oath you posted, the only possible conflict that could arise from someone who is truly religious would be if said person did not believe in the value of their word.

 

[Si modo]

Here is the problem, and it's the same for religious zealots so I am not picking on you , you are assuming that religion is suppose to be a strict set of "if then's" ... it's not suppose to be. It's a foundation of faith in something "bigger" than the world, to give you hope and encourage you to be better. The twisted forms you see zealots take it to is not what true religion is about. So you must define which religion and the "type" of follower, before you can make a connection at all.

As the oath does not address religion at all, rather a belief in a god (or that part can even be stricken for atheist servants), the oath eliminates any question of primary loyalty. If one believes in a deity, they swear to that deity to be loyal to the Constitution.

Religion and belief are not the same.

Now, if one's religion allows for a loophole(s) for lying to one's god, we've got a problem.

Most religions teach you honor your vows, actually I can't think of one that doesn't. Love for ones gods is very different than this type of oath you posted, the only possible conflict that could arise from someone who is truly religious would be if said person did not believe in the value of their word.

The oath is not addressing love for a god. It's addressing loyalty.

If one is a believer, then the oath demands that one REALLY mean what their word is by promising their god that their primary loyalty is to the Constitution. If one is not a believer, then the oath depends on one's character (backed up, hopefully, by clearance checks) for promising their primary loyalty to the Constitution.

As far as any religion having loopholes to such, and as I am no expert on Islam, Kalam stated that a Muslim CAN break this oath if the Muslim thinks the war is one of aggression, that they don't kill innocents, and that they don't kill Muslims except in self-defense. That sort of loophole of subjectivity really doesn't make me too confident about Muslims in uniform.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Which town?

Midian.

Wiped out by whom?

Moses. The poster forgot to mention that, according to the Biblical account, only the little girls were taken by the soldiers "for themselves." The male children were killed along with the rest of the inhabitants.

Fortunately, most Christians and Jews have decided to ignore passages such as this.

What, are you channeling rdean now? How is it that YOU are trying to tell me what HE was talking about? Or are you just afraid he can't come up with his own answers?

Sorry, but if you want to have a conversation with me, you initiate your own. You don't try to horn in and take over someone else's. I'll await the point that YOU want to make and discuss.

 

[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.

Respect for the lives of others?

You can't possibly be talking about Christianity.

Let me put it this way, punkinhead. If Christians were REALLY the violent, bloodthirsty bastards you just LOVE to portray them as, filling you with dread and chills up your spine as you pretend, you wouldn't be sitting here, running your gums every single day about how much they suck. You'd be lying low, hoping they didn't notice you, not getting up in their faces. So when you ACT like you're afraid of Christians, perhaps I'll listen a little more to your claims about how scary and evil they are. But probably not, because THEN I'll likely just believe you're a paranoid wackjob instead of a dishonest wackjob.