In DC on 9-11 - Muslims OK..No to bikers

Same god....hardly the case. One is all forgiving, the other wants his followers to kill Americans. Maybe its just a misunderstanding? No wonder Islam religion was not considered a legitimate religion in the US until the 1950's

I'm just going to say this once, then bow out. I understand where you are coming from, but it IS a misunderstanding fueled by fear and hatred (two things Christians are admonished to avoid, by the way). Saying that Allah "wants Muslims to kill Christians" is the same as saying "Yahweh wants Christians to be white". My point is, you are taking the religion of over 1 billion people and ascribing the mutated and mutilated interpretation of a minority of extremists to the whole lot. The equivalent would be for a non-Christian to look at the words and deeds of Nathan Bedford Forrest and the KKK and say that's what Christianity is. The point is, both religions have good people and both religions have terrible extremists who make the others look terrible. Can you say Westboro Baptist Church? I've had my say. God bless you. (Sincerely).

People will always find excuses to separate into cliques, clans, tribes, and find cause to raise their opinion of themselves by elevating their group above other groups. It's basic human nature and is evident in our behavior from early childhood to old age. Bowhunters segregate into traditionalists versus modern, quilters into hand-stitching purists versus the machine-using heretics. We are either Hoosiers or Boilers, Ford men or Chevy fanatics, over-the-toppers or against-the-wall adherents.

The people of Ireland are bitterly divided between the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans (aka "Catholic Lite" in some circles), and they have been known to throw bombs at each others schoolchildren to prove that their shared deity likes their group best. The Shiites and the Sunnis among the Muslims have well documented similarities in settling ecumenical disputes. And the history of the Christian church is replete with examples of the same intolerance over the millenia. See: Huguenots, Mormons, Crusades, heresy.

There are, as noted above, really good people in each, and some who don't play well with others in each.

IMO, both the tolerant and inclusive tendencies and the intolerance and exclusive tendencies are reflections of the human nature of the followers showing up in the policies of the belief system, more than the teachings of the belief system guiding the followers. MOST Christians are not proud of the slaughter of innocents during a thousand years plus of church rule in Europe, and MOST Muslims are not proud of the terrorists among their fellow believers, and MOST modern Christians are disgusted at the abuse of the belief system by the likes of the Westboro Baptists, and can barely imagine being party to a witch-burning in their community.

But power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When a belief system gains and holds a super-majority and ends up wielding the power of a monopoly, the worst of the traits of some of its followers tend to gain the upper hand, much as it does when any one political faction gains that sort of monopoly. And any sect or faction that is fierce and willing to use force, tends to become more dominant within such a monopoly, just as an "alpha male" personality tends to dominate any small group, because the majority are either timid or unwilling to risk the confrontation. Separating the belief system from the influence of government to the greatest practical degree made the kind of monopoly over the hearts and minds of the citizenry much harder to obtain and hold than in nations where the two were entertwined.

The beauty of our country's stance at keeping the religious path of each citizen a private matter for his/her own mind to choose, without governmental approval or denial, was that it prevented (at the national level, initially) the kind of monopoly on spiritual guidance that had occurred in other parts of the world, to the detriment of the human condition. If the people could remain free to "vote with their feet" and elect to join a congregation more in line with their personal beliefs, the general will of the public could not be distorted and abused as it was where no such choice was available. And, again IMO, that choice MUST include "none of the above" as an option to be TRUE religious freedom, otherwise it would be like a dietary choice between three kinds of beans, or the farcical choice we are faced with at the polls between two parties, neither of which we agree with on many substantive matters.

You know fellas, this entire conversation is interesting to me, and good even though we can be narrow minded at times. I'd like to think that I now totally understand where each of you are coming from. Political points, and "religious" points will often conflict even when they attempt to merge. You all make good points when I look at where you're coming from.

I appreciate all you guys and can learn from each of you in every arena. I like it when a person bravely stands their ground.

What Met has said about similarities has got me thinking. I'm a prophecy nut (on the Christian side), so none of what I'm getting ready to say may make any sense. Imagine if you will this world without Christians. It would be much easier to have a one world religion if there were no Christians. In the prophecy theater, a one world government and religion is coming, and the leader of this is not to be revealed until the Christians are gone. Yes, the rapture. I'm so excited about it, even though some people think I'm crazy!

I would speculate that as time passes the theme of focusing on the similarities will progress. Interesting.

I think that swilk is very smart. The current state of public affairs will still fit in with the theme of freedom. We're still free, so we have nothing to take back from this view. We're still one nation under God, but what god is question or god of self. No they didn't say Christian, but we Christians want to say yes, it was our God!!! It stops being free when the government tells us how to live our lives. He's making a very valid point. We with Christian convictions, want things back ...back the way they were, or the way we think they were. ...back to one nation under our God! It's what we want, but it will never be again.

We Christians have failed. We have allowed things to change. We have failed our children. We had the power to resist, but failed. That was the beginning of our downfall as "religion" and morality impacts a nation.

I have a friend who is an atheist, but he thinks out nation would be much better off if we lived by Christian morality standards. This is where we failed. We let it slip, and it avalanched from there.

As Genesis eludes, the people aren't even patriotic like the greatest generation. It all changed at the same time.

Believe it or not, the Founders probably wouldn't approve of the current phrase on currency either.
Having lived in a community where Muslims were well represented, I have mixed feelings toward them. On the one hand, the majority with whom I had dealings were ok, but on the whole they were just as intransigent in their views of other religions as anyone else. Most, aside from Iranians, were pleasant enough folks.

Genesis - not to pick a nit but wanting to get back of the days of prayers in schools and "one nation under God" is kinda a religious thing dont ya think?

I assume that you prefer those prayers be based on Christian beliefs?

Unless of course you would be comfortable with different schools picking and choosing ... some might be "one nation under Allah" while others might worship that big plate of Spaghetti.

God is on money. God is in (certain) schools. God is on govt property. Christians are very, very good about pushing their beliefs where they possibly shouldnt be. Which is fine by me .... I just cant see why some of them get so upset when they get called out about it.