posted
Recently, an email chain letter has been spamming its way into countless thousands of inboxes around the world. No, this one isn't about erectile disfunction or low-rate mortgages - it's titled "Can a Muslim be a good American?" It attempts to make the case that Muslims can never become "good Americans" because of their religious beliefs (including, ironically, the fact that they are "intolerant"). I've seen this message several times in the last week and I'm already very, very sick of it. So, in the interest of fairness, here is my tongue-in-cheek response.
Can a Christian be a good American? Theologically, no, because his allegiance is to Yahweh, the ancient Hebrew god.
Scripturally, no, because his allegiance is to Christianity and the bible.
Geographically, no, because his allegiance is to Israel, the home of "god's chosen people".
Socially, no, because his allegiance to Christianity forbids him to make friends with Muslims or Jews.
Politically, no, because he must submit to his spiritual leaders, who teach annihilation of all who do not share their faith.
Domestically, no, because he is encouraged to take slaves and beat them if they are disobedient.
Religiously, no, because no other religion is accepted by his Yahweh except Christianity - intolerance.
Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the separation of church and state - a founding principle of the USA.
Philosophically, no, because Christianity, Yahweh, and the bible do not allow freedom of religion and expression.
Democratically, no, because Christianity and democracy cannot coexist.
Posts: 13440 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I figured you might want an explanation of the above, so here it is.
Theologically, no, because his allegiance is to Yahweh, the ancient Hebrew god.
Explanation: the first commandment (commanding worship of Yahweh and forbidding worship of false idols) instructs Christians to hold Yahweh in the highest regard. In the event of conflict between Yahweh's commandments and local (human) law, the Christian would have no choice but to disregard local law in favour of Yahweh's orders. This means that a Christian's loyalty is to his god first, and his country second. See Exodus 20:2-6.
Scripturally, no, because his allegiance is to Christianity and the bible.
Explanation: again, the first commandment instructs Christians to hold their loyalty to Yahweh in higher regard than anything here on Earth.
Geographically, no, because his allegiance is to Israel, the home of "god's chosen people".
Explanation: a common interpretation of the book of Revelations is that world war III will take place in Israel and will herald the second coming of Christ. See Revelations. Israel is held in particularly high regard by Christianity not just because of its historical significance, but also because it is the home of the descendants of Jacob, to whom Yahweh allegedly gave the holy land. See Leviticus 20:24. Also see Numbers 24:8-9. The United States of America has no biblical significance and is never once referenced by the bible, meaning there is no particular reason for any Christian to hold the United States in higher regard than Israel.
Socially, no, because his allegiance to Christianity forbids him to make friends with Muslims or Jews.
Explanation: Christianity holds people of other religions in extremely low regard, and the bible goes so far as to advocate violence and death towards non-Christians. See Deuteronomy 13:6-18, also see 2 Chronicles 15:13, also see Mark 16:16
Politically, no, because he must submit to his spiritual leaders, who teach annihilation of all who do not share their faith.
Explanation: see previous point.
Domestically, no, because he is encouraged to take slaves and beat them if they are disobedient.
Explanation: Slavery is an example of conflict between Yahweh's laws and local (human) laws. Slavery was abolished in the USA long ago, yet the bible clearly states on numerous occasions that slavery is perfectly acceptable, and even provides guidelines for master/slave interaction. See Leviticus 25:44, also see 1 Peter 2:18. The bible also clearly states that it is acceptable for a master to beat the slave (provided the slave doesn't die as the result of the beating), even though under US law such a beating would be forbidden. See Exodus 21:20-21.
Religiously, no, because no other religion is accepted by his Yahweh except Christianity - intolerance.
Explanation: See the first commandment (Exodus 20:2-6).
Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the separation of church and state - a founding principle of the USA.
Explanation: A commonly held misconception among Christians is that the USA was founded as a Christian nation and somehow became secular over time. These Christians wish to remove the separation between church and state, and convert the US into a theocracy. The public school system in particular is a hotly contested battleground, with Christians arguing that religion (their religion only, of course) should be taught as fact. After all, the bible warns against learning things outside of the church (see Colossians 2:8).
Philosophically, no, because Christianity, Yahweh, and the bible do not allow freedom of religion and expression.
Explanation: Actually, Christianity does allow free expression, just as long as everything you say is in perfect agreement with their teachings. If you choose to speak out against Christianity, say, by encouraging people to investigate other religions, then you have crossed the line and should be put to death (Exodus 22:20). Freedom of religion is also allowed, just as long as you choose the Christian religion. Choosing any other religion is forbidden (See the first commandment). True freedom of expression and true freedom of religion both run counter to the fundamental guiding principles of Christianity.
Democratically, no, because Christianity and democracy cannot coexist.
Explanation: Democracy only works if ALL citizens are held in equal regard. The US Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal", yet this is in direct contradiction to the bible, which states that non-believers are inferior (see Exodus 22:20 or 2 Chronicles 15:13). Therefore, why should the Christian accept non-Christians as his equal? And in a Christian-run democracy, how long would it be before a law is passed forbidding non-Christians from participating in the democratic process? That isn't democracy - it's theocracy.
Posts: 13440 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your argument is very flawed to say the least.
Christianity is not at odds with modernity and the millions of Christians who are also good Americans can attest to this.
Why did the scientific revolution began in Christiandom or what the west was once called? Its because of Christianity. Firstly, the Bible commanded mankind to subdue the earth and have dominion over every living creature. To subdue the environment, you need to understand how things work. But that is not all. The Christian faith has always portrayed God as a rational being who made the universe work according to rational laws, which await human understanding.
Christian philosopher and theologian, St Augustine (354-430AD) said: "Heaven forbid that we should believe in such a way as not to accept or seek reasons, since we could not even believe if we did not possess rational souls."
An even earlier Christian theologian, Tertullian taught that "reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason- nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason."
Thus you can see that church leaders from its earliest times view reason as being from God. This position was comparable to the Mu'atazilites who, if they had triumphed against the fundamentalists might have saved the Muslim world from backwardness. But Islam is too fatalistic a religion for the Mu'atazilites to triumph. God is believed to determine everything. If the trajectory of an arrow is determined by God there is no need to discover the principles of gravity, velocity and momentum.
Not only does Christianity give space to human reason, it actually encourages a duty to understand God's creation, the better to marvel at it. St Bonaventure (1221 - 1274) said that the purpose of science was to honor God. Since God's laws are immutable, it remains for us to discover them. Because God is perfect than the laws that govern the universe must also be immutable.
This kind of beliefs permeated the thinking of scientists during the Age of Enlightenment. For example, Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691) in his last will and testament urged his colleagues at the Royal Society of London that "they and all other Searchers into Physical Truths may thereby add to the Glory of God and to the Comfort of Mankind."
Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650) said that rational laws must exist because God is perfect and therefore acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible except for miracles which occur rarely.
Other scientists during the Age of Enlightenment that also shared this view of a rational Creator God who created the universe according to rational laws were Newton , Kepler and even Galileo. Of these, Newton appears to be the most devout. He left copious quantities of writings on his ideas about God. In his much acclaimed work, the Principia, a whole section was devoted to God, which did not always coincide with the official opinion of the Anglican church. It is obvious Newton gave much thought speculating on the nature of God.
Thus you have a group of people eager to discover what these scientific laws are in order to glorify God even though they may not yield any immediate benefits. Thus scientific discoveries can accumulate for years, decades and even centuries without any practical use for them. Eventually, of course these scientific discoveries yielded new inventions and other benefits. This permitted the eventual breakthrough which became the Scientific Revolution. Today, science has a momentum of its own and does not need religious motivation to sustain research.
But that is why scientific revolution took place in Christiandom and not elsewhere. The breakthrough was made possible by Christian scientists who pursued what they thought of as their religious duty.
Besides Science, Christianity was among the first to produce an Abolitionist movement. Slaves have been part of all human societies since ancient times. In the 19th century, it was the churches, beginning with the Quakers that took aim at slavery. This is because Christianity teaches respect for human life and that all are equal before God. You can still see this concern for human life even today as Christian groups still oppose abortion and stem cell research.
This is also why Christianity initially appealed to the lowest classes of Roman society such as slaves. It is still true today. In India , most Indian Christians come from the Dalit caste. Antislavery doctrines first appeared not long after the fall of Rome and slavery soon disappeared in most of Europe .
When it was revived to served the interests of plantation owners in the New World , the Pope strongly opposed it. When Papal opposition failed, the Catholic church tried to soften the effects of slavery. As a result, slave conditions were much better in the lands colonized by the French and Spaniards than by the British. The abolitionist movement sparked of a bloody Civil War in America and the British paid a huge sum of money to compensate plantation owners in order to end slavery. Religious people are often prepared to make sacrifices in order to do the right thing in this world in order to please God. This respect for human life not only led to the abolition of slavery but also developed into the concept of human rights.
Finally, what about the Crusades? In these politically correct times, the Crusades have become a symbol of religious bigotry. It should be remembered that for the first 1,000 years of Christian history, there was no crusade. The Crusades happened after more than half of Christiandom was conquered by Muslims who were trying to take over the rest. It was only then that the church decided to put aside Christ's teachings of turning the other cheek to save the west. Holy war was an innovation, an alien concept probably imported from Islam.
Going on Crusade was made a form of penance. This was something new. Prior to the Crusades, doing penance to atone for one's sins was by going on pilgrimage or spending time praying in an austere monastery or even carrying a heavy load up a mountain as in the movie, “The Mission”. This shows that Christianity is basically a peaceful religion that acquired its sword only under threat of conquest and destruction.
Some Crusaders went for spiritual reasons while others went to seek their fortunes. Whatever the reasons, they did the world a service. Without the Crusades, Islam would probably have dominated the world by now. There would have been no Scientific Revolution, no Enlightenment and no democracy. We would all be living in poverty and under dictatorships like most of the Muslim world today.
Its true that the Crusades failed to permanently recapture the Holy Land . But it did delay the Fall of Constantinople by another 350 years and therefore the invasion of Central Europe , allowing Christiandom time to strengthen itself.
It should also not to be forgotten that the Reconquest of Spain after the 11th century was also officially part of the Crusades. Here in the Iberian Peninsula, the Crusade was a success because Spain and Portugal became permanently part of the west. The Iberian Peninsula was a far more strategic piece of land than the Holy Land because it was from here (being closest of the European land mass to America ) that Europe discovered America . Christopher Columbus's voyage was only possible after the Fall of Granada, the last Moorish kingdom in Spain .
The settlement and conquest of America by Christians and the resulting prosperity that the trans-Atlantic trade brought, tipped the balance against Islam. For that we owe a huge debt to the Crusaders especially those who fought in Spain and Portugal . If not for that united effort from otherwise warring European monarchs, it is likely that Europe would have been conquered. When the Crusade was first declared, Islam held sway from Spain to India .
A Muslim Christopher Columbus sailing from a Muslim Spain would have resulted in the conquest and settlement of America by Muslims. Thus it would be a matter of time before the rest of the world falls to Islam. The blood, sweat and tears of the Crusaders not only saved Christiandom but also the world.
To sum up, in the current war against terrorism, secularism is a hindrance. It encourages political correctness, low birth rates (fatal against the high birth rate of Muslims), self-doubts and apathy. The west, especially Europe , is in a deep spiritual crisis. Secularism could be a fatal weakness in its body politic against a resurgent Islam as polytheism probably was in 7th century Mecca . Modern Europeans are the lucky heirs of Christian civilization which has contributed so much to human progress. It has brought on the scientific revolution, abolition of slavery and human rights. The separation of Church and State also created the space for democracy to take root.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
For the most devout, this can produce either Mother Theresas or Mohammed Attas depending on what the devout believes his God expects of him or her. Such people are the easiest to motivate in times of war or difficulty.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Domestically, no, because he is encouraged to take slaves and beat them if they are disobedient.
Incorrect. Jesus was against slavery. Didn't Jesus say: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."?
Posts: 45 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by With a name like Smuckers: Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the separation of church and state - a founding principle of the USA.
Certainly Jesus' ministry was not about establishing a political kingdom. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). On one occasion, Jesus perceived that a group of people were going to try and make Him a King. So He hid from them on a mountain (John 6:15). The thrust of Christ's ministry was regeneration —the saving of souls. His message was essentially a spiritual one.
The followers of Jesus perfectly understood the dual application of His preaching, that they were to be citizens of two worlds —a heavenly kingdom and the kingdoms of this world. They understood what Jesus was talking about when He commanded in Matthew 22:21: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things that are God's."
Posts: 45 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Philosophically, no, because Christianity, Yahweh, and the bible do not allow freedom of religion and expression.
Rubbish. God loves each and every human being and wants each of us to have a personal, loving relationship with Him through His son Jesus Christ. But He will not force any one to accept His love. He has given us the choice of accepting His love or rejecting it. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it clear that this forgiveness is a free gift given to us by God. "For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works lest any man should boast." In a way, God’s forgiveness of our disobedience is like the gifts parents put under the Christmas tree for their children. Parents give their children presents because they love them. They do not charge their children the price of the gift. The parent pays the price of the present and gives it freely to the child. If a child opened a present and found a bill inside charging $50 for the present, it would not be considered a gift. It would simply be something that the child had purchased for himself. If the present is truly to be a gift, all the child has to do is to accept it. God’s forgiveness is like that Christmas present. It is neither earned nor is it deserved.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bloody hell star trek... where did you spring from?
captains log, star date 20 06, it appears we have come across an M class planet with basic life forms who still wage war over religion. it would violate the prime objective to show ourselves to them as they have not yet discovered warp drive, so instead we spammed there message boards with copy and paste.
Posts: 5642 | From: hellonearth.myfastforum.org Forum Index | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charm el Feikh?: define good american
I would consider Civil rights leader Martin Luther King, a good American.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount provided him with the foundation for his political protest of non-violent resistance. King's views were based in part on Matthew 5:39, where Jesus said: "But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." The consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars concerning this text is that Jesus was referring to a backhanded blow —one of the worst indignities suffered by an oppressed people in the Roman culture. To turn the other cheek, however, is a clever way of preventing another backhand from one's persecutor. It forces the oppressor to make the next blow with his fist, which was the way equals would fight in that day. It's a way of saying, "I have dignity. I am your equal. I am your peer." Without question, Jesus is instructing God's people not to retaliate when persecuted for their faith. But His words also contain a strategy for overcoming evil with good— shaming and exposing the evil of oppression— using the power of oppression against itself.
Consider Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Could there be a more sublime statement with greater political overtones? This parable crosses the divide between culture, race and creed. It talks about crime, racial discrimination, hatred, bigotry, and exploitation. It even indicts religious leaders who are unwilling to do anything about these problems.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
turn the other unto him. (i was reading it about two hours ago)!
Posts: 5642 | From: hellonearth.myfastforum.org Forum Index | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
and still... define a good american.. all you did was name one example of who you would 'consider' to be one.
Posts: 5642 | From: hellonearth.myfastforum.org Forum Index | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What constitutes "a good American" is obviously a matter of opinion. But most Americans would agree that
A good American is an explorer of boundaries, of limits, and of possibilities.
A good American seeks ideas not only to confirm his beliefs, but to risk the possibility of discovering information that shakes those beliefs to their foundations.
A good American knows when to work, and knows when to have fun, and knows that the one serves and validates the other.
Most importantly, a good American is someone who thinks.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmmmmmmm.... i disagree... i think you just defined a good person.
Posts: 5642 | From: hellonearth.myfastforum.org Forum Index | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are right on Star Trek! I don't need to add much. Smuckers, here is something to "Smuck" on( just joking): Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's". Hence, we can give unto what we are supposed to give to the U.S., and yet still be truthful and genuine followers of Christ. My question to you is: can Muslims be good Americans? I haven't read that spam stuff you are talking about, so just let me know what you think, aight? Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic