First Muslim Congressman to swear in on Thomas Jefferson's Koran - Page 2

Ardentfrost · 01-04-2007, 02:37 PM

Considering Jefferson rewrote the Bible and took out all the miracles (the virgin birth, Jesus being the son of God, turning water to wine, casting out demons, etc...) it seems pretty obvious he was a deist, not a christian. I saw Lew mention that he didn't agree with that assessment once before, but the proof is in the actions imo.

And as mentioned in other threads, simply going to church (if you can prove he did that) does not mean he wasn't a deist. Lots of deists go to christian churches.

So, anyhow, if Jefferson was a deist, then his Koran was more than just an addition to his library because it would hold just as much weight as the Bible: good teachings with embellishments about divine occurances.

ballz2wallz · 01-04-2007, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Considering Jefferson rewrote the Bible and took out all the miracles (the virgin birth, Jesus being the son of God, turning water to wine, casting out demons, etc...) it seems pretty obvious he was a deist, not a christian. I saw Lew mention that he didn't agree with that assessment once before, but the proof is in the actions imo.

And as mentioned in other threads, simply going to church (if you can prove he did that) does not mean he wasn't a deist. Lots of deists go to christian churches.

So, anyhow, if Jefferson was a deist, then his Koran was more than just an addition to his library because it would hold just as much weight as the Bible: good teachings with embellishments about divine occurances.

I'm not claiming that he was a Christian instead of a Deist, but merely that he didn't prefer the removal of Christianity from our country. He had his own beliefs surely, but he was not as averse to it as one would like to claim; merely the perversions of it. But these days, what Christian or non-Christian isn't averse to the perversion that people have made of it?

He did, however, believe in Jesus. He was a lot closer to Christianity in his beliefs then to Islam.

"I am a Christian in the only sense in which he [Jesus] wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other." (Morse's Jefferson, American Statesmen Series, p. 304.)

Ardentfrost · 01-04-2007, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I'm not claiming that he was a Christian instead of a Deist, but merely that he didn't prefer the removal of Christianity from our country. He had his own beliefs surely, but he was not as averse to it as one would like to claim; merely the perversions of it. But these days, what Christian or non-Christian isn't averse to the perversion that people have made of it?

He did, however, believe in Jesus. He was a lot closer to Christianity in his beliefs then to Islam.

"I am a Christian in the only sense in which he [Jesus] wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other." (Morse's Jefferson, American Statesmen Series, p. 304.)

Of course he believed Jesus existed... Muslims and Jews believe that. But the entire point of him rewriting the Bible was to point out that Jesus was a good man and had good teachings without the miracles. He wanted to make the Bible more meaningful and less superstitious.

DosEquis · 01-04-2007, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I'm not claiming that he was a Christian instead of a Deist, but merely that he didn't prefer the removal of Christianity from our country.

Who said he wanted the removal of christianity? Or is this implying that a muslim congressman swearing on his holy book is part of the "war on christmas/christians" and going for the removal of christianity?

I was always partial to freedom of religion myself. As long as we are swearing on holy books, he should be able to swear on his koran, as the freedom of religion is the basis for this justification. If we end up with 100 muslim senators... koran it is. Then maybe we could finally put ourselves on the "axis of evil"

ballz2wallz · 01-04-2007, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Of course he believed Jesus existed... Muslims and Jews believe that.

His belief in Jesus went a little deeper than His existence.

ballz2wallz · 01-04-2007, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Who said he wanted the removal of christianity? Or is this implying that a muslim congressman swearing on his holy book is part of the "war on christmas/christians" and going for the removal of christianity?

I was always partial to freedom of religion myself. As long as we are swearing on holy books, he should be able to swear on his koran, as the freedom of religion is the basis for this justification. If we end up with 100 muslim senators... koran it is. Then maybe we could finally put ourselves on the "axis of evil"

His Deistic beliefs and quotes against the perversions of Christianity are often used to prove that our founding fathers (one person represents multiple founders?) did not build this country on Christianity. It's simply not a valid case.

Thorgrim · 01-04-2007, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

His belief in Jesus went a little deeper than His existence.

so does muslims

Scrum · 01-04-2007, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

His Deistic beliefs and quotes against the perversions of Christianity are often used to prove that our founding fathers (one person represents multiple founders?) did not build this country on Christianity. It's simply not a valid case.

I'm an atheist and I built a treehouse.

Now in 200 years everyone can say my treehouse was built on Atheism.

lew · 01-04-2007, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I saw Lew mention that he didn't agree with that assessment once before, but the proof is in the actions imo.

I never stated Jefferson was a Christian. I said that he said he was a Christian.

And I agree with dumpy dooby here, that someone can be both Deist and Christian at the same time. Also, like I've stated before, beliefs can change, and it is entirely possible he considered himself a Deist at one point in his life (with some quotes from him to back that up) and then became a Christian at another point in this life (with other quotes to back that up).

RMNIXON · 01-04-2007, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Baseless speculation

It was a holy book and he did own it, those are the facts...trying to say it was "merely a piece in his collection" is a theory with no facts

Isn't it just great to see the lefts reverence for the use of Holy Books in Government. It has nothing to do with spiteful "in your face" to Christians. By the by, Jesus get very good mention in the Koran. He is considered a religious prophet by muslims.

RMNIXON · 01-04-2007, 04:12 PM

Just on the News at 12:05 PM Pacific Ellison had his picture taken with his hands on the Koran with Nancy Pelosi. Sure to be all over the news. Now watch who makes a big PC deal out of this all out of proportion?

imind · 01-04-2007, 06:40 PM

Isn't it just great to see the lefts reverence for the use of Holy Books in Government. It has nothing to do with spiteful "in your face" to Christians.

lol. it was the christians who started this nonsense to begine with, by suggesting there was something wrong with what he was doing. it probably would have gone unnocticed, otherwise.

i doubt you will find anyone on 'the left' ever truly complain about the use of a holy book in a swearing in ceremony (beyond commenting on the retarded nature of it), if that is what the incoming office holder wantes.

Diamond Cross · 01-04-2007, 06:41 PM

I'd like to see someone swear on the Satanic Bible myself.

ballz2wallz · 01-04-2007, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by imind

lol. it was the christians who started this nonsense to begine with, by suggesting there was something wrong with what he was doing. it probably would have gone unnocticed, otherwise.

i doubt you will find anyone on 'the left' ever truly complain about the use of a holy book in a swearing in ceremony (beyond commenting on the retarded nature of it), if that is what the incoming office holder wantes.

Perhaps you are missing the point of his statement:

On the one hand, you have the left complaining about 'separation of church and state' or removing religion (notice, that's 'religion', implying ALL religion) from our government or anything related, especially when anything Christian is related. You'd think they'd be consistent when it came to other religions, no? It's obviously not; more proof that Christianity is a target amongst these people, not religion in general.

On the other hand, you have Christians remaining consistent with their desire to keep this country at its Christian roots.

To me, there seems to be quite a difference.

DosEquis · 01-04-2007, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

His Deistic beliefs and quotes against the perversions of Christianity are often used to prove that our founding fathers (one person represents multiple founders?) did not build this country on Christianity. It's simply not a valid case.

While the founders may have been christians this country was founded on principles of freedom, including religion. The founders may have been christian, could have been christians that wrote the constitution, etc, but this country was not founded on christianity itself. They mention "god" in a lot of areas, but god is a fairly general term that can apply to many religions.

The consistancy issue you are talking about, you are misinterpreting it. As long as we swear on holy books, a muslim should be able to swear on his Koran and a christian on his bible. Personally I could give a shit less what they swear on and would prefer they remove that aspect completely. Religion is obsolete and as our society gets older it will become less dependent. People will have their faith and core values, but in the end it will be less influencial. For example, we used to burn and hang people accused of "witch craft", and we don't anymore because we grew out of that phase and realized it was bullshit. Just like when i was 6 years old and realized Santa and the Tooth fairy was bullshit. Eventually we will stop giving a shit if the 10 commandments is outside of a court house, we won't have people like Pat Robertson blaming hurricanes on lesbians, we won't have groups like the one in Kansas claiming the soldiers dying in Iraq is because god hates fags. Its all silly. The intention behind religion, moral teachings, respect thy neighbor, don't bang his wife, don't steal, those are all really good teachings. To take it much further beyond that is just dumb and thats what people are doing today with Jihads and "war on christmas" along with the congressman who claims swearing on the Koran is a threat to american values.

imind · 01-04-2007, 09:00 PM

On the one hand, you have the left complaining about 'separation of church and state' or removing religion (notice, that's 'religion', implying ALL religion) from our government or anything related, especially when anything Christian is related.

this is not at all related to any arguements associated with SofC/S, and you will never hear anyone say anything similar to what you've suggested above.

Diesel66 · 01-04-2007, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Baseless speculation

It was a holy book and he did own it, those are the facts...trying to say it was "merely a piece in his collection" is a theory with no facts

Did he follow the religion ? If not, perhaps it isnt so baseless.

Thorgrim · 01-04-2007, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Did he follow the religion ? If not, perhaps it isnt so baseless.

A lot of people don't strictly follow Islam yet have a Koran which is specially kept as a sacred and holy book.

RMNIXON · 01-04-2007, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Perhaps you are missing the point of his statement:

On the one hand, you have the left complaining about 'separation of church and state' or removing religion (notice, that's 'religion', implying ALL religion) from our government or anything related, especially when anything Christian is related. You'd think they'd be consistent when it came to other religions, no? It's obviously not; more proof that Christianity is a target amongst these people, not religion in general.

You mean we have very selective principles here? NO!

I am sure some athiest backed by the ACLU will file a complaint against this blatant seperation violation of religion by the end of the week!