• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the U.S. government tell a specific religion what they can teach?

Should the U.S. government tell a specific religion what they can teach?


  • Total voters
    34
Again, I don't know what it takes to pass over and ignore "radical" in his statement, but you're going further to prove you have it in abundance.

I didn't ignore it. You ignored that part that I posted where he is clearly referring to Islam in general.
 
I didn't ignore it. You ignored that part that I posted where he is clearly referring to Islam in general.

He qualified his statement in the next sentence, a fact you are trying to ignore. Enough said.
 
Sure you can, especially if you believe that the jihadists are not true to Islam. If you believe the west has a mild version of Islam that does not promote Jihad, why not separate and discriminate between the two? This ensures that the distinction is one of behavior and ideology and not just religious affiliation.

You can do anything you want. You can say we will ban all religions and that there cannot be any religion whatsoever. But when you do that you sacrificed freedom of religion. No you cannot say that the west has a mild version of Islam while at the same time saying that we will come after it in other parts of the world simply because of religious belief. Because if you can justify that, then you can justify doing it anywhere, including the U.S. What we can say is that we are going to target ANY group BECAUSE they are teaching and encouraging people to attack the U.S. And if a group is found to be doing that, then we can go after them. But that is very different from saying we will go after one group specifically because of what they believe.
Just to restate the obvious, we don't single out any religion, we single out the behavior and ideology. If murderous behavior and dangerous ideology resides within a religion should we "let it go", not to be accused of religious discrimination?

While I agree with you that we do it on the basis of behavior, I disagree with you that we should target a religion because it's ideology. That is because ideology is subjective. To see how this is problematic, if we want to say we target a religion because it has an ideological aspect that is violent, one can point to the Bible and find all kinds of references to violence. Are we going to target Christians because the Bible says there will be a war in which everyone who does not believe will be destroyed? That is the problem.

How about a brief mental exercise? If you could ask every member of ISIS or Al-qaeda, would they say the are fighting in the name of Islam? If so they have singled out their own religion for scrutiny via their BEHAVIOR, not us. Let's make that distinction and call it out.

I like mental exercises. Just because they say they are fighting in the name of Islam, does that necessarily mean that it is true. Let's suppose a group of so called Christians starts killing people that they think don't believe in Jesus because the Bible says there will be a war in which non-believers will be destroyed. Should we then target Christianity as a religion based on that ideological aspect? That's the problem. Religion deals with subjects that are beyond empirical sense perception. As such, if you are going to do it based on ideological foundations, then you run into the problem of having to interpret religious texts that are old and likely have become misunderstood because of the passage of time or may not even have a sound historical basis in the first place. Even among people of various religions there are vastly different interpretations of religious texts. Is the government now going to start placing an official interpretation on religious texts? That would be stupid to try to do. But if you are going to judge a religion on ideological grounds, that is indeed what you will have to do, and that simply cannot be done properly because, as I have indicated, religion deals with things that are beyond empirical sense perception. As such it takes a divine person to interpret religious texts properly. The government just does not have the capacity to do that properly.
 
Last edited:
He qualified his statement in the next sentence, a fact you are trying to ignore. Enough said.

I don't think he qualified his statement. It appears from the first statement that he thinks that Islam, in general, is like that. I think that he has merely placed a description on Islam in general and did not want to make a difference in Islam and radical Islam. His use of radical was merely rhetorical. And to see this he feels that we can target Muslim holy sites and kill innocent people using the justification that we did at Hiroshima. The rationale is that Islam, in general, is violent, so if we kill innocent people at a Muslim holy place, it is justified because the religion as a whole poses a threat. That's what you do not want to see.
 
I don't think he qualified his statement. It appears from the first statement that he thinks that Islam, in general, is like that. I think that he has merely placed a description on Islam in general and did not want to make a difference in Islam and radical Islam. His use of radical was merely rhetorical. And to see this he feels that we can target Muslim holy sites and kill innocent people using the justification that we did at Hiroshima. The rationale is that Islam, in general, is violent, so if we kill innocent people at a Muslim holy place, it is justified because the religion as a whole poses a threat. That's what you do not want to see.

It's obvious you have an agenda, and you see what you want to see. That is your cross to bear.
 
It's obvious you have an agenda, and you see what you want to see. That is your cross to bear.

Yes I have an agenda, and that is protecting freedom of religion.
 
If that is the case, the irony in your posts could be cut with a feather.

The only way to do it is to insure that no one is targeted simply because of religion.
 
The only way to do it is to insure that no one is targeted simply because of religion.

You mean like you're targeting others because of their religion views?

IMO, you haven't established much credibility in your perspective.
 
You mean like you're targeting others because of their religion views?

IMO, you haven't established much credibility in your perspective.

Well that's your opinion, but I think a gave a rather good example of it.
 
Some appear to feel that the U.S. government has the right to single out Islam and say specifically what it can and cannot teach. Should the government be allowed to single out a specific religion in this way?




No religion or other organization is allowed to promote violence against Americans. No matter what church it is done in, if detected it will be considered a crime.
 
No religion or other organization is allowed to promote violence against Americans. No matter what church it is done in, if detected it will be considered a crime.

That's right. But what I am saying is that we should not single out a single religion based on ideology. That is dangerous. Again as I said, are we going to come after Christians based on the violence that is in the Bible? That is the problem.
 
That's right. But what I am saying is that we should not single out a single religion based on ideology. That is dangerous. Again as I said, are we going to come after Christians based on the violence that is in the Bible? That is the problem.




Bud, Christians didn't just behead a bunch of people and burn a pilot alive. The shoe bomber, Fort Hood shooter, Charlie Hebdo killers, Spanish train bombers, Russian Theater hostage takers, Palestinian suicide bombers, UK and Canadian veteran-murderers, USS Cole bombers, and 9/11 hijackers were not Christian... they were Muslim.

Let's keep a bit of perspective here. It's not like Christian terrorism is currently a major global problem (it barely even exists)... but Islamic terrorism is, and it is NOW, not 600 years ago.
 
Bud, Christians didn't just behead a bunch of people and burn a pilot alive. The shoe bomber, Fort Hood shooter, Charlie Hebdo killers, Spanish train bombers, Russian Theater hostage takers, Palestinian suicide bombers, UK and Canadian veteran-murderers, USS Cole bombers, and 9/11 hijackers were not Christian... they were Muslim.

Let's keep a bit of perspective here. It's not like Christian terrorism is currently a major global problem (it barely even exists)... but Islamic terrorism is, and it is NOW, not 600 years ago.

Well it is said that George Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq. Not only that but recent history we have had Christians doing all sorts of things in the name of religion. It's not that uncommon. Look at what happened in Waco. Look at what happened with Jim Jones. What about Mormons who believe in polygamy? Are we going to go after Christians in general because of that? Are we going to go after Mormons and tell them take polygamy out of their ideology?

Another thing, the vast majority of Muslims are not beheading people.

But that aside, let's look at it from this perspective. What would you do if Christians started doing those things? Would we then say we are going to ban Christians from teaching about things like a final war where non-believers will be destroyed?
 
To be honest with you, if you accept that a specific religion can be targeted because of ideology, then one could make the case that religion should be banned altogether because it creates too many problems.
 
Well it is said that George Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq.



"It is said"?? You seriously want me to take that seriously?


Not only that but recent history we have had Christians doing all sorts of things in the name of religion. It's not that uncommon. Look at what happened in Waco. Look at what happened with Jim Jones.

Waco was a mistake on the part of the government, and the Branch Davidians were not Christian. Jim Jones didn't engage in global terrorism, he founded a cult and convinced them he was God's right hand and they should suicide for him.


Not the same thing. Please enumerate where Christians have beheaded, burned to death, or blown up people in job lots like Islamic terrorists have, within this century. You can't.... there are only two comparable incidents, the OKC bombing and the abortion clinic bombing. The former was retaliation for the government's blunders at Waco, and the perp in the latter case is not a Christian (having said in letters available online that he "preferred Nietzsche to the Bible", something no true Christian would avow).




What about Mormons who believe in polygamy? Are we going to go after Christians in general because of that? Are we going to go after Mormons and tell them take polygamy out of their ideology?

In no way comparable to supporting global terrorism, or jihad or the Caliphate.



Another thing, the vast majority of Muslims are not beheading people.

Yet some recent polls show an enormous amount of support for such things among many Muslim populations.



But that aside, let's look at it from this perspective. What would you do if Christians started doing those things? Would we then say we are going to ban Christians from teaching about things like a final war where non-believers will be destroyed?


Christians are NOT doing "such things". That's the point. Let's keep the focus on who ACTUALLY IS doing these things.
 
Some appear to feel that the U.S. government has the right to single out Islam and say specifically what it can and cannot teach. Should the government be allowed to single out a specific religion in this way?
Could you provide a little more detail? What are they trying to dictate?
 
"It is said"?? You seriously want me to take that seriously?

That is what has been said. Do you think I made it up?

Waco was a mistake on the part of the government, and the Branch Davidians were not Christian.

The government did indeed make mistakes but you are dead wrong about the other part. The Branch Davidians did indeed CLAIM to be Christians.

From its inception in 1930, the reform movement believed themselves to be living in a time when Bible prophecies of a final divine judgment were coming to pass as a prelude to Christ's second coming. The name "Branch Davidian" is most widely known for the Waco siege of 1993 on their property (known as the Mount Carmel Center) near Waco, Texas. The 51-day siege, by the ATF, FBI, and Texas National Guard, resulted in the deaths of the Branch Davidians' leader, David Koresh, as well as 82 other Branch Davidian men, women, and children, and four ATF agents

Branch Davidians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jim Jones didn't engage in global terrorism, he founded a cult and convinced them he was God's right hand and they should suicide for him.

Jim Jones was a fanatic whose teachings where based, in part on the Apocalypse. Again like the Branch Davidians, violence that is in the Bible.

Not the same thing. Please enumerate where Christians have beheaded, burned to death, or blown up people in job lots like Islamic terrorists have, within this century. You can't.... there are only two comparable incidents, the OKC bombing and the abortion clinic bombing. The former was retaliation for the government's blunders at Waco, and the perp in the latter case is not a Christian (having said in letters available online that he "preferred Nietzsche to the Bible", something no true Christian would avow).

They are not the same thing but they are based on ideology formed on the basis of the Bible. The thing is this, there are quite a few Christians who believe that our wars have been justified because of the will of God. One only need to look to the example of Boykin to see this.

In no way comparable to supporting global terrorism, or jihad or the Caliphate.

One could make the case that it is a form of terrorism against women and as the government should demand that Mormons stop teaching it.

Yet some recent polls show an enormous amount of support for such things among many Muslim populations.

Before I comment, show me the poll.

Christians are NOT doing "such things". That's the point. Let's keep the focus on who ACTUALLY IS doing these things.

The problem with your position is that freedom of religion is a matter of constitutional law. As such, the issue of precedent comes into play. The danger is that once we start targeting one religion on the basis of ideology, we can do it to all of them. Therefore it is most certainly appropriate to keep the focus not on religious ideology, but behavior of groups and individuals.
 
Could you provide a little more detail? What are they trying to dictate?

I have given the example of Lt. General Dooley earlier in the thread. Should I repost it, or do you think it is irrelevant?
 
I have given the example of Lt. General Dooley earlier in the thread. Should I repost it, or do you think it is irrelevant?
I caught that after I posted. Sorry about that.

If I could offer a suggestion, though. A little more detail in your first post would make things easier. A suggestion that I need to remind myself of, at times, btw.

Sometimes I purposely leave out some detail as I want to elicit honest responses, but sometimes that backfires on me and I don't give enough.
 
That is what has been said. Do you think I made it up?


No, but "it is said" is hardly proof of anything. It's known as "heresay".







Before I comment, show me the poll.


It's been posted here on DP at least twice in the last couple months. I think it is a Pew poll.



The problem with your position is that freedom of religion is a matter of constitutional law. As such, the issue of precedent comes into play. The danger is that once we start targeting one religion on the basis of ideology, we can do it to all of them. Therefore it is most certainly appropriate to keep the focus not on religious ideology, but behavior of groups and individuals.


You don't know what my position is, obviously. I never said anything about targeting Islam, I said it is illegal to incite/support actual violence regardless of who does it, and I said that it is Islam who is doing this in this century, and these are both factual statements.
 
I caught that after I posted. Sorry about that.

If I could offer a suggestion, though. A little more detail in your first post would make things easier. A suggestion that I need to remind myself of, at times, btw.

Sometimes I purposely leave out some detail as I want to elicit honest responses, but sometimes that backfires on me and I don't give enough.

Yeah, I noticed I have a tendency to do that. I'll try to do better. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
It's been posted here on DP at least twice in the last couple months. I think it is a Pew poll.

I did not see it, so I am not going to try to comment on something I have not seen.

You don't know what my position is, obviously. I never said anything about targeting Islam, I said it is illegal to incite/support actual violence regardless of who does it, and I said that it is Islam who is doing this in this century, and these are both factual statements.

OK, but you seemed to have a problem with my contention that we should not target specific religions based on ideology. If you agree with that, then we don't have a disagreement.
 
I did not see it, so I am not going to try to comment on something I have not seen.



OK, but you seemed to have a problem with my contention that we should not target specific religions based on ideology. If you agree with that, then we don't have a disagreement.


I have no problem "targeting" any organization that is engaged in the ACTUAL incitement and support of unlawful violence against my fellow citizens, if by "targeting" you mean keeping an eye on and arresting those engaged in illegal behavior. At present, that problem is found with Wahhabi and Sunni Islam chiefly.
 
I have no problem "targeting" any organization that is engaged in the ACTUAL incitement and support of unlawful violence against my fellow citizens, if by "targeting" you mean keeping an eye on and arresting those engaged in illegal behavior.

Absolutely. That is my point, we should target individuals and the organizations that are actually doing it, not the religion itself and Dooley appeared to want to do that.

At present, that problem is found with Wahhabi and Sunni Islam chiefly.

And those are not organizations, the are branches of a religion based on ideology. Therefore we should not target individuals or organizations simply because they are Sunni for example. Now if you think we should, that is were I have a disagreement.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom