Celtic Heroes

Think of this, would you fight eachother for your beliefs, or just accept what aNother person believes and move on?

Think of this, would you fight eachother for your beliefs, or just accept what aNother person believes and move on?

Given the laws I'm forced to endure, and the bull**** my kids have to endure in schools because of religious politics - fight. No question. That dosent even count the deaths not knowing what is real causes.

And I'm not fighting for 'belief' as in made up crap I put off as facts. Rather I am for facts and evidence first. Keep that 'belief' to yourself and out of public education, politics, and public places.

Think of this, would you fight eachother for your beliefs, or just accept what aNother person believes and move on?

Given the laws I'm forced to endure, and the bull**** my kids have to endure in schools because of religious politics - fight. No question. That dosent even count the deaths not knowing what is real causes.

And I'm not fighting for 'belief' as in made up crap I put off as facts. Rather I am for facts and evidence first. Keep that 'belief' to yourself and out of public education, politics, and public places.

I think that you have a very selfish mindset Plus3. America was founded by Christians who wanted from of religion - obviously not from it. What you are saying is that we should not have freedom quite blatantly, and that atheists should have all of the freedom that they desire. I find it unfair.

Most if not all of the founding fathers for the US were deists... I would imagine if they were anything more, the US would be a Christian nation right now.

Freedom of religion is the ability to practise whatever belief you want but out of the public. That basically applies to any belief, athiests and Christians. What plus3 is saying is that we should not make laws based on if god exists or not but rather what the direct impact will be on a nation no matter what.

So for abortion, we should not be thinking: 'Oh no, do it and we will sin' or 'Pfft, there is no god, let's do the opposite of whatever religion says.' We should actually consider the effect on our society seeing as how we can all agree that, free will or otherwise, is on its own.

If you look at the words, the root of the word is the same.

Having the same root says little of meaning. The sentences "I am bored," and "I am boring," both have the same root, but are drastically different in meaning and implication.

Although, I don't believe that there are changes like this but thats just because I haven't read in those types of the Quran.

I don't know why you don't believe it when I just provided examples.

If you go to any place, pick up 5 qurans, open any surah/ayah, you will find the exact same thing written there on all 5.

If it's the same version (by the same reciter/transmitter) of the Quran, of course it will. But there are differences in all of the (if I recall) 10 accepted versions of the Quran. Rather than me, why don't you seek out copies of the various transmitters? The burden of proof is on you, sir, for making the claim.

Again, though, you are spending your time trying to defend an issue that I said I found minor. The small differences are not the big problem (though it does show that the clause "not even a word of it" is inaccurate.)

The real issue is that there have been several alterations. The main surviving example is the order of the surahs, which I talked about before. Unfortunately for Islam, all other versions were burned when the current "original" was created.

Interestingly enough, Mohammed himself seems to have been fine with various versions:

Narrated Umar bin Al-Khattab:

I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listen to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Surat which I heard you reciting ?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me". I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle taught it to me in a different way from yours".

So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said, "I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!". On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him (Umar) recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way", and added, "Recite, O Umar", I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever is easier for you."

While this chap, Umar, seems to be in need of an anger management course, it was a convenient loophole that Mohammed created to allow for an almost infinite number of readings.

All this was lost, however, when everything was burned... oh and some other stuff was lost when it was eaten by a goat. I think that omission also constitutes an alteration from the "original."

Think of this, would you fight eachother for your beliefs, or just accept what aNother person believes and move on?

Given the laws I'm forced to endure, and the bull**** my kids have to endure in schools because of religious politics - fight. No question. That dosent even count the deaths not knowing what is real causes.

And I'm not fighting for 'belief' as in made up crap I put off as facts. Rather I am for facts and evidence first. Keep that 'belief' to yourself and out of public education, politics, and public places.

Without facts its belief man i dont think what you go through is fair but this world runs on facts man i hate to say that but its true

Think of this, would you fight eachother for your beliefs, or just accept what aNother person believes and move on?

The wording is a bit odd. Would I fight physically? Of course not. With words and/or legal means? Certainly.

Plus3 alluded to the reason that needs to be done.

Luckily, I don't live in the States, where it is a much bigger issue. In Canada the question isn't even entertained. The public school system is just that, and the separate school system falls under different regulations. The good thing about Canada, however, is that the separate school board also offers a solid education. So while there may be a liturgy or mass every so often, and while Religion is a course, everything else is nearly exactly the same as the public schools.

I will admit that I don't know what is taught at stand-alone Christian schools... but the difference between Public and Catholic schools is minimal.

Given the laws I'm forced to endure, and the bull**** my kids have to endure in schools because of religious politics - fight. No question.

Can you give examples of what you mean?

I think that you have a very selfish mindset Plus3. America was founded by Christians who wanted from of religion - obviously not from it. What you are saying is that we should not have freedom quite blatantly, and that atheists should have all of the freedom that they desire. I find it unfair.

1. I find it ironic that you call someone selfish, then whine like a champ that this and that is unfair. You also follow the flawed logic that this is a Christian vs. Atheist issue... when in reality the addition of, say, Creationism, to a public school is far far more than that. It would be relevant to every tax payer who is not a Creationist. Everson vs. BOE is a prime example.

2. America, in a sense, was founded on the principle of taking land and displacing the Native population whose ancestors had been there for some 16,000 years.

3. Your understanding of America's history and laws is lacking. I would wager a guess that you know the Cliff's Notes version of the Constitution and Amendments, but those are mere sound bits. The "founding fathers" and early senate were quite clear that there should be a separation of religion and state.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Allowing rights and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it were by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

And if you find all of those a little vague, this one should be clear as an unmuddied lake:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The separation of state from religion is quite clear (or was clear in the past... I'm not terribly sure since Dubya) and has always been backed by your Supreme Court.

Your entire claim of it being "unfair" is not unlike a smoker who says his rights have been trampled by a smoke-free restaurant.

I am the only god there is you all should follow me