Angry Atheist win in Washington State

[ready4ONE 5,400]

In an American city where Muslims are large in number, yes the government should be able to celebrate along with the people. The government is supposed to be there for we the people. The government is not supposed to be disconnected from the people.

Nothing wrong with a government leader or building in such a city celebrating Ramadan. Now, if the city only endorsed Muslims and rejected all other religions, yes then this would be a problem, as per the United States Constitution and the Constitution of most other first world countries.

You hit the nail on the head!

One would expect the "peoples puplic places" to reflect the people there.

Danno, you fail to understand just how complex 'religion' can be, even within allegedly the same 'faiths.' So if you start putting up the accouterments of one faith at your local government office, you then need to reflect the wide variety of belief systems and faiths, and recognize some are offended by the symbols of one faith or another, and you wind up with something that is satisfactory for none.

IF why you say is true.... that even those of the same basic faith cannot agree,...... why is it we never had these problems in the past?

I certainly understand there needs to be order and limits, but truthfully, most religious folks and groups I know respect each others equal rights.

It's the Atheist who seem to cause 90% of the disagreement on these issues.

Atheists have as much, if not more rights, to not have other religions thrust upon them as the folks you believe are injured by State offices not allowed to put up Nativity scenes. The issue is bigger than merely Atheism, since there are a great many conflicting religions which people practice. It is not practical to honor them all, nor desirable. Thus people should celebrate and practice their respective religions at home and in their churches.

There does need to be order and limits, and if you can't celebrate every belief, no matter how obscure, then it is proper to celebrate none, at least on State and City property.

[Danno 1,228]

In an American city where Muslims are large in number, yes the government should be able to celebrate along with the people. The government is supposed to be there for we the people. The government is not supposed to be disconnected from the people.

Nothing wrong with a government leader or building in such a city celebrating Ramadan. Now, if the city only endorsed Muslims and rejected all other religions, yes then this would be a problem, as per the United States Constitution and the Constitution of most other first world countries.

You hit the nail on the head!

One would expect the "peoples puplic places" to reflect the people there.

Danno, you fail to understand just how complex 'religion' can be, even within allegedly the same 'faiths.' So if you start putting up the accouterments of one faith at your local government office, you then need to reflect the wide variety of belief systems and faiths, and recognize some are offended by the symbols of one faith or another, and you wind up with something that is satisfactory for none.

IF why you say is true.... that even those of the same basic faith cannot agree,...... why is it we never had these problems in the past?

I certainly understand there needs to be order and limits, but truthfully, most religious folks and groups I know respect each others equal rights.

It's the Atheist who seem to cause 90% of the disagreement on these issues.

Atheists have as much, if not more rights, to not have other religions thrust upon them as the folks you believe are injured by State offices not allowed to put up Nativity scenes. The issue is bigger than merely Atheism, since there are a great many conflicting religions which people practice. It is not practical to honor them all, nor desirable. Thus people should celebrate and practice their respective religions at home and in their churches.

There does need to be order and limits, and if you can't celebrate every belief, no matter how obscure, then it is proper to celebrate none, at least on State and City property.

YIKES!!!

And I thought all this "diversity" was going to bring us together and make us stronger.

Seems like the more diverse we get the more we are told to "Keep it to yerself".

[ready4ONE 5,400]

In an American city where Muslims are large in number, yes the government should be able to celebrate along with the people. The government is supposed to be there for we the people. The government is not supposed to be disconnected from the people.

Nothing wrong with a government leader or building in such a city celebrating Ramadan. Now, if the city only endorsed Muslims and rejected all other religions, yes then this would be a problem, as per the United States Constitution and the Constitution of most other first world countries.

You hit the nail on the head!

One would expect the "peoples puplic places" to reflect the people there.

Danno, you fail to understand just how complex 'religion' can be, even within allegedly the same 'faiths.' So if you start putting up the accouterments of one faith at your local government office, you then need to reflect the wide variety of belief systems and faiths, and recognize some are offended by the symbols of one faith or another, and you wind up with something that is satisfactory for none.

IF why you say is true.... that even those of the same basic faith cannot agree,...... why is it we never had these problems in the past?

I certainly understand there needs to be order and limits, but truthfully, most religious folks and groups I know respect each others equal rights.

It's the Atheist who seem to cause 90% of the disagreement on these issues.

Atheists have as much, if not more rights, to not have other religions thrust upon them as the folks you believe are injured by State offices not allowed to put up Nativity scenes. The issue is bigger than merely Atheism, since there are a great many conflicting religions which people practice. It is not practical to honor them all, nor desirable. Thus people should celebrate and practice their respective religions at home and in their churches.

There does need to be order and limits, and if you can't celebrate every belief, no matter how obscure, then it is proper to celebrate none, at least on State and City property.

YIKES!!!

And I thought all this "diversity" was going to bring us together and make us stronger.

Seems like the more diverse we get the more we are told to "Keep it to yerself".

Not really the issue, but nice try!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'll bet you got this sh!t from a Muslim hating website that preaches how Muslims shouldn't be part of America at all. Shame on you, Nagi.

Actually, no I didn't. Shame on YOU for falsely accusing me. Why are you so angry?

Ok, then sorry for accusing you of something you didn't do, but it reads that way. I am pissed off, yes. Not sure why.

It might have come from here, which also includes the following quote, similar to a question she asked recently in the MENA forum:

What are moderate Muslims, who believe the world will submit to Allah later, supposed to think when they see unprecedented acts of acceptance of Islam right now?

How Ironic, a book referred to in the link you posted, CAIR: Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America, was the very subject of the Coast to Coast America program I mentioned in an earlier post here.

One problem that we have is that non-Muslims in the media, like Mr. Federer are defining the issue in ignorant terms, those who are ignorant of Islam are lead further into ignorance. Muslims are then approached with these tired definitions, and expected to accept them as prescribed by the ignorants. For example, the terms moderate and fundamentalist do not carry the same connotation when applied to Muslims. All devout Muslims are moderate because the faith demands moderation. We are all fundamentalist because we follow the fundamentals of the faith.

Every day insulting and erroneous terms like Islamic militants, Islamists, jihadist, or something of the sort, are bandied about the media, and defended as correct by arrogant mouthpieces on the air who don't care that there is nothing Islamic about terrorism, that anyone who follows Islam is an Islamist, or that personal jihad is a requirement of the faith, but it is required for us to be violent at all.

The result is Muslims who would be happy to participate in the dialogue, and speak out against terrorism, shrug their shoulders and go back to their lives because it's clear that America doesn't want to hear from us, to gain our input or correct their errors. They prefer the stimulation of radical Islam to boring orthodox Islam, and will continue to demean the faith of over a billion adherents to get their daily fix.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Thanks for that link, Jenn. I knew I was right about where that list came from, you proved it.

[Jenn! 918]

Thanks for that link, Jenn. I knew I was right about where that list came from, you proved it.

No problem. I thought you were too, which is why I looked into it.

[slim 1,530]

The result is Muslims who would be happy to participate in the dialogue, and speak out against terrorism, shrug their shoulders and go back to their lives because it's clear that America doesn't want to hear from us, to gain our input or correct their errors. They prefer the stimulation of radical Islam to boring orthodox Islam, and will continue to demean the faith of over a billion adherents to get their daily fix.

Sounds about right. Oh shoot, I think American Idol is on!