Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan wan...

Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan wants to rebuild Detroit; he'll meet City Council, speak at church

There are 801 comments on the MLive.com story from May 15, 2013, titled Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan wants to rebuild Detroit; he'll meet City Council, speak at church. In it, MLive.com reports that:

Minister Louis Farrakhan, leader of The Nation of Islam, is expected to be in Detroit this week to meet Detroit City Council Members and speak at Fellowship Chapel on the city's west side.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at MLive.com.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#713 Jun 13, 2013
Why so quiet all of sudden, you lying piece of crap? Can't deal with truth? You have no evidence to support your lying claims. I can prove everything I said.
TheRealDeal

Farmington, MI

#714 Jun 13, 2013
The fool is the sheep in denial who blindly follows an evil religion of hate!

The morons are those who praise a pedophile prophet who took a child for a wife!

The damn fool liar is the one who pretends that being muslim is about peace, when we all know the muslims are violent, evil, and islam is full of disgraceful activities, by anyone's standards!

Tell ya what...just go ahead and strap one on, then go misfire it onto yourself you goober! FOOL!

Oh...and try and learn the Quran too!
TheRealDeal

Farmington, MI

#715 Jun 13, 2013
The Qur'an:
Qur'an (33:50)- "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" This is one of several personal-sounding verses "from Allah" narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Others are restrained to four wives, but may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear:

Qur'an (23:5-6)- "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..." This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves. See also Qur'an (70:29-30).

Qur'an (4:24)- "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." Even sex with married slaves is permissible.

Qur'an (8:69)- "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good" A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his "catch" because (according to verse 71) "Allah gave you mastery over them."

Qur'an (24:32)- "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves..." Breeding slaves based on fitness.

Qur'an (2:178)- "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female." The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal. The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman's worth is also distinguished from that of a man's).

Qur'an (16:75)- "Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal?(By no means;) praise be to Allah." Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master. In this case it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah's will.(According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah's gifts on slaves - those whom the god of Islam has not favored).
TheRealDeal

Farmington, MI

#716 Jun 13, 2013
From the Hadith:

Bukhari (80:753)- "The Prophet said,'The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'"

Bukhari (52:255)- The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven.

Bukhari (41.598)- Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but can be used to pay off the debt.

Bukhari (62:137)- An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad's men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad's approval.

Bukhari (34:432)- Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad's approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them. Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus.

Bukhari (47.765)- A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave).

Bukhari (34:351)- Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader.

Bukhari (72:734)- Some contemporary Muslims in the West, where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime, are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad. In this case, the slave is of African descent.

Muslim 3901 - Muhammad trades away two black slaves for one Muslim slave.

Muslim 4112 - A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself. He cast lots to determine which two to free.

Bukhari (47:743)- Muhammad's own pulpit - from which he preached Islam - was built with slave labor on his command.

Bukhari (59:637)- "The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid,'Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?' When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said,'O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?' I said,'Yes.' He said,'Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.'" Muhammad approved of his men having sex with slaves, as this episode involving his son-in-law, Ali, clearly proves. This hadith refutes the modern apologists who pretend that slaves were really "wives," since Muhammad had forbidden Ali from marrying another woman as long as Fatima (his favorite daughter) was living.

Abu Dawud (2150)- "The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse:(Qur'an 4:24)'And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.'" This is the background for verse 4:24 of the Qur'an. Not only does Allah grant permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands.(See also Muslim 3432 & Ibn Kathir/Abdul Rahman Part 5 Page 14)

Abu Dawud 1814 - "...[Abu Bakr] He then began to beat [his slave] him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?" The future first caliph of Islam is beating his slave for losing a camel while Muhammad looks on in apparent amusement.

Ibn Ishaq (734)- A slave girl is given a "violent beating" by Ali in the presence of Muhammad, who does nothing about it.
TheRealDeal

Farmington, MI

#717 Jun 13, 2013
cont...
Abu Dawud 38:4458 - Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:“A slave-girl belonging to the house of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) committed fornication. He (the Prophet) said: Rush up, Ali, and inflict the prescribed punishment on her. I then hurried up, and saw that blood was flowing from her, and did not stop. So I came to him and he said: Have you finished inflicting (punishment on her)? I said: I went to her while her blood was flowing. He said: Leave her alone till her bleeding stops; then inflict the prescribed punishment on her. And inflict the prescribed punishment on those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves)”. A slave girl is ordered by Muhammad to be beaten until she bleeds, and then beaten again after the bleeding stops. He indicates that this is prescribed treatment for slaves ("those whom your right hand possesses").

Ibn Ishaq (693)- "Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu'l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons." Muhammad trades away women captured from the Banu Qurayza tribe to non-Muslim slave traders for property.(Their men had been executed after surrendering peacefully without a fight).

Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller)(o9.13)- According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture. A captured woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#719 Jun 13, 2013
Sahih Muslim 8:3432
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran 4:. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).

Quran 4
"23. Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters and your paternal aunts and your maternal aunts and brothers' daughters and sisters' daughters and your mothers that have suckled you and your foster-sisters and mothers of your wives and your step-daughters who are in your guardianship,(born) of your wives to whom you have gone in, but if you have not gone in to them, there is no blame on you (in marrying them), and the wives of your sons who are of your own loins and that you should have two sisters together, except what has already passed; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 24. And all married women EXCEPT THOSE WHOM YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESS (this is) Allah's ordinance to you,"

I don't think that whom your right hands possess means their own penis in their hands. So the hadith was right and shed further light on Quran 4:24
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#720 Jun 13, 2013
So Abu Dawud 2150 matches Sahih Muslim 8:3432 perfectly. So I think that these hadiths should be considered authentic. and they BOT CLEARLY refer to Quran 4:24
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#721 Jun 13, 2013
And now the next comment is that we are just haters and hate Islam because we are jealous of it. But apparently we don't hate Islam any more than the hadiths and the Quran itself.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#722 Jun 13, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Secular just means separation of church and state, and in Christianity, this is allowed for, regardless of what the Catholic Church did in the past.
<quoted text>
They ARE heretics. The Quran is a very clear book and spells it all out for them.
<quoted text>
15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians.“Teacher,” they said,“we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?” 18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said,“You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them,“Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” 21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them,“So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
<quoted text>
Well you ARE confusing Atheism with secularism when you said that black people are moving from Christianity to secularism. All that secularism means is separation of Church and State. It has nothing to do with someone's religious beliefs, and whether they have religious beliefs or not.
As far as Muslims being secularists, Islam is a very specific religion. And it isn't just a religion, it is thought of as a complete way of life, involving Politics and Law as well. Any Muslim educated on Islam will tell you that. There is no separation of Religion and Politics and Law, these are deeply ingrained into the religion itself. And it could be said that it is actually more Political and Legal than it is Religious. This is why it needs to be reclassified in the US as the Political movement. There is no such thing as the will of the people in Islam, there is only the will of God. And when God's law is not the law of the land, they are required to do whatever it takes to make it the law of the land.
People need to start becoming more educated on Islam to understand the threat to freedom and Democracy that it actually is. And the ironic part, is that it is the Atheists, such as you, and the Agnostics, who usually know the least about Islam and see no threat, who are the ones that Islam will treat the WORST if it gains power. Muhammad merely conquered Christians and Jews so that they fall under Islamic rule and had to pay a penalty tax called the Jizyah, which really amounted to humiliating them for not becoming Muslim, and to outright extortion where the leaders could set the Jizyah rate at whatever percentage they wanted to or felt they needed to.
But with the pagans or anybody that didn't believe in God, and particularly, monotheism, it was essentially, convert or die. So why would we expect Muslims to do anything different than what Muhammad did? They are commanded to follow his actions as the best of examples for all time. And if they don't, they are heretics who deny what the Quran clearly says and what Muhammad clearly did. Just because they have no ability to do this right now, doesn't mean that it is not in the back of their minds. It HAS to be, or they are not real Muslims but rather heretics
I will now resume my reply which was interrupted when I got suddenly busy with a family issue. First of all, you have too narrow a conception of what secularism is, either by definition or simply historical reality. Consider first some definitions from the Random House Webster Dictionary.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#723 Jun 13, 2013
Secular: 1. "Pertaining to WORLDLY THINGS not regarded as sacred."
2. "not related to or concerned with religion, e.g., "secular music."

Secularism: 1, secular spirit or tendency, esp. a systme of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religion or worship

2.the view that public education and other matters of CIVIL POLICY should be conducted without the influence of religious belief.

Secularism seem to denote that which is nonreligious, or thisworldly. It may or may not be antireligious. There are skeptics who neither know nor care whether there is a god. They're obviously secular people.
It COULD take an antireligious character as happened with much of the French enlightenment.
It may take an attitude of indifference. It is not MERELY separation of church and state, though that is normally taken for granted as one important feature of at least modern secularism.
When i speak of secular Christians or Muslims,I refer to people who are at least nominally Christian or Muslim but for whom those religions are not central in their lives...at least not in the public lives. There are Jews who are ATHEISTS, but are still regarded as Jews even though they obviously don't believe in the OT and Judaism.
At least in Greece, the intellectual founder of secularism may well be Thales, normally regarded as ancient Greece's first philosopher. Thales wondered, as did many other philosphers "What is the nature of being, of existence? Might there not be some fundamental stuff out of which everything else is made?" By posing questions in this fashion, he was beginning a nonmythological way of viewing the world. A nonreligious way of viewing the world. Already there is secularism even though no issue of church and state could have emerged at that time Thales simply sought a naturalistic, rational, one might say protoscientific way of examining the world which moved away from traditional religious views.
He doesn't so much attack religous as he disregards it and takes another path.
In short, secular culture has existedn for THOUSANDS of years in various parts of the world. And it's not reducible to the separation of churhc and state, or of religion and politics.
(The skeptic Voltaire thought it was best that the common people continued to believe in religion, but that religion ought not be imposed on enlightened men like himself, and ought not be allowed to suppress intellectual freedom)

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#724 Jun 13, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Secular just means separation of church and state, and in Christianity, this is allowed for, regardless of what the Catholic Church did in the past.
<quoted text>
They ARE heretics. The Quran is a very clear book and spells it all out for them.
<quoted text>
15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians.“Teacher,” they said,“we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?” 18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said,“You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them,“Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” 21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them,“So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
<quoted text>
Well you ARE confusing Atheism with secularism when you said that black people are moving from Christianity to secularism. All that secularism means is separation of Church and State. It has nothing to do with someone's religious beliefs, and whether they have religious beliefs or not.
As far as Muslims being secularists, Islam is a very specific religion. And it isn't just a religion, it is thought of as a complete way of life, involving Politics and Law as well. Any Muslim educated on Islam will tell you that. There is no separation of Religion and Politics and Law, these are deeply ingrained into the religion itself. And it could be said that it is actually more Political and Legal than it is Religious. This is why it needs to be reclassified in the US as the Political movement. There is no such thing as the will of the people in Islam, there is only the will of God. And when God's law is not the law of the land, they are required to do whatever it takes to make it the law of the land.
People need to start becoming more educated on Islam to understand the threat to freedom and Democracy that it actually is. And the ironic part, is that it is the Atheists, such as you, and the Agnostics, who usually know the least about Islam and see no threat, who are the ones that Islam will treat the WORST if it gains power. Muhammad merely conquered Christians and Jews so that they fall under Islamic rule and had to pay a penalty tax called the Jizyah, which really amounted to humiliating them for not becoming Muslim, and to outright extortion where the leaders could set the Jizyah rate at whatever percentage they wanted to or felt they needed to.
But with the pagans or anybody that didn't believe in God, and particularly, monotheism, it was essentially, convert or die. So why would we expect Muslims to do anything different than what Muhammad did? They are commanded to follow his actions as the best of examples for all time. And if they don't, they are heretics who deny what the Quran clearly says and what Muhammad clearly did. Just because they have no ability to do this right now, doesn't mean that it is not in the back of their minds. It HAS to be, or they are not real Muslims but rather heretics
Now I trust you understand from what I've posted that I regard atheism as ONE tendency within secularism. Atheizts like Nietzsche and Marx are secular. Deists like Tom Paine, Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson are secular. The agnostic Protagoras was secular. Modern American culture is largely secular, more so than a century or two ago. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are secular.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#725 Jun 13, 2013
@You should now see that it is a mistake to say that I am confusing secularism with atheism by speaking of growing secularism among American Blacks.
Actually, there probably ARE more Black atheists today than here were twenty, thirty or forty years ago. Certainly more than ther were 100 years ago.
But the increase in Black secularism is not in most cases atheistic.
While the Christian church remains the most powerful, influential institution in Black America, it has more competitors--positive and negative--for that influence.
Education has increased over the years. And while the majority of Blacks are not highly educated, the minority of us who are has increase substantially. This has meant greater and greater exposure to secular thought. Ther are negative things too, like the culture of consumerism, commericalism, etc.
The church and religion has been largely DE-centered. Dr. W.E.B.DU Bois, eminent Black historian, sociologists, writer noted in 1903 that over 80% of all Black Americans were churched, mainly as Baptists and Methodists. Today, that number is under half. The church is no longer the center of life for the vast majority of Black Americans, though it is still the largest of all institutions. This is secularization.
There has always been secular music (e.g. blues, jazz, soul) living often in uneasy tension with religious music (spirituals, gospel, etc). But the secular dimension now seems to have a grater influence than previously. And as some Black Christians are only nominally so, it is not wholly unreasonable to infer that some of those Christian are secular in reality if not in name. Most are not atheists, howeveer.
Anonymous

Franklin, MI

#726 Jun 13, 2013
Abrahamic religions are a bunch of hypocritical M.F.
Why ?
Christians enjoyed slavery, mayhem and foreign land plundering, so did saber rattling Arab Muslim jihadists.
See what type of mess Boko haram is doing in Nigeria. It is no difference from what the leaders of the Christian world (France, UK etc.) did in Libya when they killed Colonel Gaddafi.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#727 Jun 14, 2013
Savant wrote:
Secular: 1. "Pertaining to WORLDLY THINGS not regarded as sacred."
Correct, partitioning, not denying.
Savant wrote:
2. "not related to or concerned with religion, e.g., "secular music."
Correct, not related to or concerned with, rather than against.
Savant wrote:
Secularism: 1, secular spirit or tendency, esp. a systme of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religion or worship
I think that real world examples would disagree with the use of the word reject in this definition. Marxism rejects it. If it was a rejection, then it would have no tolerance for it, and yet secular societies have tolerance for religious beliefs, but separate themselves from those beliefs
2.the view that public education and other matters of CIVIL POLICY should be conducted without the influence of religious belief.
Correct, separation of church and state as I said from the beginning.
Savant wrote:
Secularism seem to denote that which is nonreligious, or thisworldly. It may or may not be antireligious. There are skeptics who neither know nor care whether there is a god.
And that's what I have been saying. There's no rejection for it, simply no concern for it.
Savant wrote:
It COULD take an antireligious character as happened with much of the French enlightenment.
Could, but in practice, it rarely does. Proudly secular Turkey certainly does not reject Islam as it is a heavily Muslim country.
Savant wrote:
It may take an attitude of indifference. It is not MERELY separation of church and state, though that is normally taken for granted as one important feature of at least modern secularism.
When i speak of secular Christians or Muslims,I refer to people who are at least nominally Christian or Muslim but for whom those religions are not central in their lives....at least not in the public lives. There are Jews who are ATHEISTS, but are still regarded as Jews even though they obviously don't believe in the OT and Judaism.
I have a Jewish friend exactly like that, and he does not still refer to himself as a Jew to denote his religion, but instead to denote his people or a commonality of people and their common roots. There are two aspects to Judaism.
Savant wrote:
At least in Greece, the intellectual founder of secularism may well be Thales, normally regarded as ancient Greece's first philosopher. Thales wondered, as did many other philosphers "What is the nature of being, of existence? Might there not be some fundamental stuff out of which everything else is made?" By posing questions in this fashion, he was beginning a nonmythological way of viewing the world. A nonreligious way of viewing the world.
Well, I don't see where the question of a creator or not is in that statement.
Savant wrote:
Already there is secularism even though no issue of church and state could have emerged at that time Thales simply sought a naturalistic, rational, one might say protoscientific way of examining the world which moved away from traditional religious views.
Well even science does not reject religion, it merely says that science has nothing to do with it one way or the other.
Savant wrote:
So perhaps religion can be called irrelevant, according to science.
He doesn't so much attack religous as he disregards it and takes another path.
I could agree with that.
Savant wrote:
In short, secular culture has existedn for THOUSANDS of years in various parts of the world. And it's not reducible to the separation of churhc and state, or of religion and politics.
(The skeptic Voltaire thought it was best that the common people continued to believe in religion, but that religion ought not be imposed on enlightened men like himself, and ought not be allowed to suppress intellectual freedom)
I think that Voltaire states it perfectly.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#728 Jun 14, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I trust you understand from what I've posted that I regard atheism as ONE tendency within secularism. Atheizts like Nietzsche and Marx are secular. Deists like Tom Paine, Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson are secular. The agnostic Protagoras was secular. Modern American culture is largely secular, more so than a century or two ago. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are secular.
You can even be religious and be secular as well. You can be religious and yet believe that these matters should not be considered in political issues. Give back to Caesar what is his and give to God what is his would be a major example of this.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#729 Jun 14, 2013
Savant wrote:
@You should now see that it is a mistake to say that I am confusing secularism with atheism by speaking of growing secularism among American Blacks.
Actually, there probably ARE more Black atheists today than here were twenty, thirty or forty years ago. Certainly more than ther were 100 years ago.
But the increase in Black secularism is not in most cases atheistic.
While the Christian church remains the most powerful, influential institution in Black America, it has more competitors--positive and negative--for that influence.

Education has increased over the years. And while the majority of Blacks are not highly educated, the minority of us who are has increase substantially. This has meant greater and greater exposure to secular thought. Ther are negative things too, like the culture of consumerism, commericalism, etc.
The church and religion has been largely DE-centered. Dr. W.E.B.DU Bois, eminent Black historian, sociologists, writer noted in 1903 that over 80% of all Black Americans were churched, mainly as Baptists and Methodists. Today, that number is under half. The church is no longer the center of life for the vast majority of Black Americans, though it is still the largest of all institutions. This is secularization.
I could agree with that. However, my point was that they were always secular in that they never had any demands that religion rule politically and publicly. I believe that what you speak of is what I would call a dilution of religious importance due to more life experiences and education. You had 10 parts religion, 5 parts water, now you have 10 parts religion, 10 parts water, but the 10 parts are still there. But yes, there are some that are becoming atheist. That would be a different matter altogether.
Savant wrote:
There has always been secular music (e.g. blues, jazz, soul) living often in uneasy tension with religious music (spirituals, gospel, etc).
Well, I never saw a tension between the two in the black community, but rather an embracement of both, but I am not an expert in black history and culture. But I always saw the two as being similar in many ways where the subject matter was merely different. And there were many Jazz artists who would occasionally create a religious song or two and many Gospel songs with Jazz roots.
Savant wrote:
But the secular dimension now seems to have a grater influence than previously. And as some Black Christians are only nominally so, it is not wholly unreasonable to infer that some of those Christian are secular in reality if not in name. Most are not atheists, howeveer.
Well, I still think that they were always secular, but one can be secular and religious at the same time. But I understand your point.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#730 Jun 14, 2013
TheRealDeal wrote:
The Qur'an:
Qur'an (24:32)- "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves..." Breeding slaves based on fitness.
We can find similar occurences in Bible:

Numbers 31:17-18
King James Version (KJV)

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

*God is the same God of justice in Old Testament and Quran.
He only turns to the fancy fake Hellenistic god of love in the contentious New Testament.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#731 Jun 14, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, partitioning, not denying.
<quoted text>
Correct, not related to or concerned with, rather than against.
<quoted text>
I think that real world examples would disagree with the use of the word reject in this definition. Marxism rejects it. If it was a rejection, then it would have no tolerance for it, and yet secular societies have tolerance for religious beliefs, but separate themselves from those beliefs
<quoted text>
Correct, separation of church and state as I said from the beginning.
<quoted text>
And that's what I have been saying. There's no rejection for it, simply no concern for it.
<quoted text>
Could, but in practice, it rarely does. Proudly secular Turkey certainly does not reject Islam as it is a heavily Muslim country.
<quoted text>
I have a Jewish friend exactly like that, and he does not still refer to himself as a Jew to denote his religion, but instead to denote his people or a commonality of people and their common roots. There are two aspects to Judaism.
<quoted text>
Well, I don't see where the question of a creator or not is in that statement.
<quoted text>
Well even science does not reject religion, it merely says that science has nothing to do with it one way or the other.
<quoted text>
I could agree with that.
<quoted text>
I think that Voltaire states it perfectly.
Partitioning and denying are not mutually identical, but neither are they mutually exclusive. Some ATHEISTS favor the secular state both because they think all theism is nonsense, and because they feel that nonsense could be imposed on them without a secular state.
Some Christians and Muslims and other religionists prefer a secular state if for no other reason than that they know there are different versions of Christianity or Islam, and do not want someone else's version imposed on them by the state. Before secularization Catholic persecuted Protestants, and Protestants persecuted Catholics--using state power when the had it.
In the Muslim world Sunni regimes persecuted Shias, and vice versa.
Science simply operates on the premise that the natural univeerse can be understood in natural terms, or by means of natural laws, accessible to reason. It is secular in the sense of being nonreligious. They don't attribute earthquakes, sickness or famine to divine wrath. That was precisely how people did understand such phenomena when Thales abandoned mythological worldview. In short, Thales shifted from a religious to a secular perspective. Atheism was ONE tendency that emerged from the secular culture, but it was not the whole of secular culture.
By the way, when I say that there has been an INCREASE of secularism within Black America, I do not EQUATE secularism with Atheism, but I do recognize atheism as one tendency within secularism. Indeed that tendency has also increased in Black America, but is a minority tendency even with those dimentions of Black culture that is the most secular. Nonetheless, we have more atheists than we used to. More agnostics (like myself) also.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#732 Jun 14, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I could agree with that. However, my point was that they were always secular in that they never had any demands that religion rule politically and publicly. I believe that what you speak of is what I would call a dilution of religious importance due to more life experiences and education. You had 10 parts religion, 5 parts water, now you have 10 parts religion, 10 parts water, but the 10 parts are still there. But yes, there are some that are becoming atheist. That would be a different matter altogether.
<quoted text>
Well, I never saw a tension between the two in the black community, but rather an embracement of both, but I am not an expert in black history and culture. But I always saw the two as being similar in many ways where the subject matter was merely different. And there were many Jazz artists who would occasionally create a religious song or two and many Gospel songs with Jazz roots.
<quoted text>
Well, I still think that they were always secular, but one can be secular and religious at the same time. But I understand your point.
There can be and has been tension between secular and religious dimension of Black culure; and people can have both tendencies working their lives. Sometimes the tension happened because some Black religionists saw jazz, blues and other secular forms of music as the "devil's" music. Fortunately, most African-Americans were not that rigid.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#733 Jun 14, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
Partitioning and denying are not mutually identical, but neither are they mutually exclusive. Some ATHEISTS favor the secular state both because they think all theism is nonsense, and because they feel that nonsense could be imposed on them without a secular state.
Some Christians and Muslims and other religionists prefer a secular state if for no other reason than that they know there are different versions of Christianity or Islam, and do not want someone else's version imposed on them by the state. Before secularization Catholic persecuted Protestants, and Protestants persecuted Catholics--using state power when the had it.
In the Muslim world Sunni regimes persecuted Shias, and vice versa.
I think it's more about the realization that there are verying beliefs and nobody wants to have to continually fight about it, so there is an impartial ref who takes care of the business side of things, that they all need and have in common.
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
Science simply operates on the premise that the natural univeerse can be understood in natural terms, or by means of natural laws, accessible to reason.
Well, that's not "exactly" true, particularly with the advent of Quantum Physics. Many scientists will say that the more the find out or know, the more they realize that they don't know. One answer turns into six more questions and it seems to grow exponentially, leading some to conclude the following as Heisenberg did.

“Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we CAN think.”

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I an now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on, Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
It is secular in the sense of being nonreligious. They don't attribute earthquakes, sickness or famine to divine wrath.
Most sensible religious people don't do that either, all though they do believe that everything happens for a reason, but not necessarily due to wrath.
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
That was precisely how people did understand such phenomena when Thales abandoned mythological worldview. In short, Thales shifted from a religious to a secular perspective. Atheism was ONE tendency that emerged from the secular culture, but it was not the whole of secular culture.
By the way, when I say that there has been an INCREASE of secularism within Black America, I do not EQUATE secularism with Atheism, but I do recognize atheism as one tendency within secularism. Indeed that tendency has also increased in Black America, but is a minority tendency even with those dimentions of Black culture that is the most secular. Nonetheless, we have more atheists than we used to. More agnostics (like myself) also.
But they never called for religion to rule and always separated religion from Political rule and Public policy, as long as there were certain morals present, and secularism is not without morals.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

River Rouge Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 42 min Mary beth 20,639
General Motors Pontiac Stamping Plant Wed Amberstarr 1
News Detroit seeks proposals to add housing in Midto... Wed WATCHING LIVONIA 2
News Low performing Detroit schools could close Wed former democrat 1
I hate all white people. They all are like Trump Wed Philbert 16
Top Five Analingus Tips (Sep '08) Wed Got Rice 41
News Tips Sought In Case Of Unidentified Body Found ... Wed former democrat 1

River Rouge Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

River Rouge Mortgages