Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
Actually, according to traditional Islamic teaching, all children are born Muslim. Some are then brought up in other religions.
The NHS style of health service was called socialist healthcare by several right leaning politicians in the US.
In that, at least, they're correct (if only accidentally).
Is it though. If the police and fire services are paid through tax why should health be any different. Would people call the police and fire services socialist? Would you say the BBC is socialist? Publicly funded is not the same as socialist.
The BBC is funded by a flat fee, so not "from each according to their means".
I think public fire services are socialist. Police is more difficult because it depends on whether you see them as providing a public service or acting as the enforcement arm of the state.
When I made my Oath of Allegiance it was to Her Majesty the Queen, not the government. I was free to vote for whoever I liked.
The Queen's authority was delegated to her ministers.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
Actually, according to traditional Islamic teaching, all children are born Muslim. Some are then brought up in other religions.
I am not a follower of traditional islamic teaching.
The NHS style of health service was called socialist healthcare by several right leaning politicians in the US.
In that, at least, they're correct (if only accidentally).
Is it though. If the police and fire services are paid through tax why should health be any different. Would people call the police and fire services socialist? Would you say the BBC is socialist? Publicly funded is not the same as socialist.
The BBC is funded by a flat fee, so not "from each according to their means".
I think public fire services are socialist. Police is more difficult because it depends on whether you see them as providing a public service or acting as the enforcement arm of the state.
When I made my Oath of Allegiance it was to Her Majesty the Queen, not the government. I was free to vote for whoever I liked.
The Queen's authority was delegated to her ministers.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
I'm not sure that's a meaningful distinction. Does it matter whether a child acquires a (perhaps nominal) religion at the time of birth, or through enculturation throughout their formative years?
That is a very western Protestant Christian view of the question.
My answer would apply to all religions.
That would be consistent with your very western Protestant Christian view of the question.
That's your opinion and I have my opinion. It's a bit like football. You are not born a supporter of any particular team. More often than not, you decide to follow the same team as your family.
That is a very western Protestant Christian view of the question.
My answer would apply to all religions.
That would be consistent with your very western Protestant Christian view of the question.
That's your opinion and I have my opinion. It's a bit like football. You are not born a supporter of any particular team. More often than not, you decide to follow the same team as your family.
Not true. Some beliefs say you are because say your mother or father is one. Choosing to leave can be difficult and sometimes dangerous.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
Actually, according to traditional Islamic teaching, all children are born Muslim. Some are then brought up in other religions.
I am not a follower of traditional islamic teaching.
I had no misconception that you are.
So, when you said children “are not born Muslim” and “are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim,” what you meant was that is your opinion. As you have said you are not a follower of traditional Muslim teaching, why should your opinion of when someone becomes a Muslim carry any weight?
Besides, I suspect you’re aware that “born x” is a very common way of saying “born into an x family and an x culture.”
Sorry, I got lost some time ago. How does this relate to Trump and his impact on other countries?
Questions of birth location could become very relevant if Trump re-instates his ban on travel and immigration from predominantly Muslim countries. If you were born in Somalia (for example) the first Trump administration* considered you a Muslim regardless of your actual religious beliefs. It seems likely that a second Trump administration will take a similar position.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
Actually, according to traditional Islamic teaching, all children are born Muslim. Some are then brought up in other religions.
I am not a follower of traditional islamic teaching.
I had no misconception that you are.
So, when you said children “are not born Muslim” and “are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim,” what you meant was that is your opinion. As you have said you are not a follower of traditional Muslim teaching, why should your opinion of when someone becomes a Muslim carry any weight?
Besides, I suspect you’re aware that “born x” is a very common way of saying “born into an x family and an x culture.”
Would we who are not Muslim, or that kind of Muslim, say that God sees anyone as “born Muslim”? Muslims (or some Muslims) may believe that, but if we don’t think Islam describes the universe as well as Christianity (or another religion, or no religion) does, then why talk as if we’re uncertain about the “born Muslim” idea? (Are there any Muslims here in the Ship who could weigh in?)
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
Actually, according to traditional Islamic teaching, all children are born Muslim. Some are then brought up in other religions.
I am not a follower of traditional islamic teaching.
I had no misconception that you are.
So, when you said children “are not born Muslim” and “are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim,” what you meant was that is your opinion. As you have said you are not a follower of traditional Muslim teaching, why should your opinion of when someone becomes a Muslim carry any weight?
Besides, I suspect you’re aware that “born x” is a very common way of saying “born into an x family and an x culture.”
Would we who are not Muslim, or that kind of Muslim, say that God sees anyone as “born Muslim”? Muslims (or some Muslims) may believe that, but if we don’t think Islam describes the universe as well as Christianity (or another religion, or no religion) does, then why talk as if we’re uncertain about the “born Muslim” idea?
Because when it comes to the question “who is a Muslim?” (which missed different from the question “who does God see as born Muslim?”), the Islamic understanding is relevant, just as the Jewish understanding is relevant to “who is a Jew?” and the Christian understanding* is relevant to the question of “who is a Christian?”
It’s not for an outsider to create definitions and criteria as to who is and who isn’t a member of a religion.
*Yes, I readily acknowledge there is more than one Christian understanding.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
Actually, according to traditional Islamic teaching, all children are born Muslim. Some are then brought up in other religions.
I am not a follower of traditional islamic teaching.
I had no misconception that you are.
So, when you said children “are not born Muslim” and “are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim,” what you meant was that is your opinion. As you have said you are not a follower of traditional Muslim teaching, why should your opinion of when someone becomes a Muslim carry any weight?
Besides, I suspect you’re aware that “born x” is a very common way of saying “born into an x family and an x culture.”
Would we who are not Muslim, or that kind of Muslim, say that God sees anyone as “born Muslim”? Muslims (or some Muslims) may believe that, but if we don’t think Islam describes the universe as well as Christianity (or another religion, or no religion) does, then why talk as if we’re uncertain about the “born Muslim” idea?
Because when it comes to the question “who is a Muslim?” (which missed different from the question “who does God see as born Muslim?”), the Islamic understanding is relevant, just as the Jewish understanding is relevant to “who is a Jew?” and the Christian understanding* is relevant to the question of “who is a Christian?”
It’s not for an outsider to create definitions and criteria as to who is and who isn’t a member of a religion.
*Yes, I readily acknowledge there is more than one Christian understanding.
Re "Because when it comes to the question “who is a Muslim?” (which missed different from the question “who does God see as born Muslim?”)," I am not sure what the difference is, if we're talking about whether someone truly is or is not something.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
Actually, according to traditional Islamic teaching, all children are born Muslim. Some are then brought up in other religions.
And if you add this, how does this not mean that I need to be open to the idea that I myself (along with you and everyone else) was born Muslim, since some Muslims believe it?
(Not even getting into the way that some Jews regard Jews who convert to Christianity as no longer Jews, even though we certainly--in my own understanding as a Jewish Christian--are still Jews. We don't suddenly become Gentiles by accepting that Jesus is the Messiah. Of course, being Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion, so you can be ethnically Jewish and a Buddhist, an Orthodox/Reformed/etc. Jew, or a Christian, or an atheist, and still be a Jew.)
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
Actually, according to traditional Islamic teaching, all children are born Muslim. Some are then brought up in other religions.
I am not a follower of traditional islamic teaching.
I had no misconception that you are.
So, when you said children “are not born Muslim” and “are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim,” what you meant was that is your opinion. As you have said you are not a follower of traditional Muslim teaching, why should your opinion of when someone becomes a Muslim carry any weight?
Besides, I suspect you’re aware that “born x” is a very common way of saying “born into an x family and an x culture.”
Would we who are not Muslim, or that kind of Muslim, say that God sees anyone as “born Muslim”? Muslims (or some Muslims) may believe that, but if we don’t think Islam describes the universe as well as Christianity (or another religion, or no religion) does, then why talk as if we’re uncertain about the “born Muslim” idea?
Because when it comes to the question “who is a Muslim?” (which missed different from the question “who does God see as born Muslim?”), the Islamic understanding is relevant, just as the Jewish understanding is relevant to “who is a Jew?” and the Christian understanding* is relevant to the question of “who is a Christian?”
It’s not for an outsider to create definitions and criteria as to who is and who isn’t a member of a religion.
*Yes, I readily acknowledge there is more than one Christian understanding.
Re "Because when it comes to the question “who is a Muslim?” (which missed different from the question “who does God see as born Muslim?”)," I am not sure what the difference is, if we're talking about whether someone truly is or is not something.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
Actually, according to traditional Islamic teaching, all children are born Muslim. Some are then brought up in other religions.
And if you add this, how does this not mean that I need to be open to the idea that I myself (along with you and everyone else) was born Muslim, since some Muslims believe it?
That Islamic teaching may say that my great-nephew born two days ago is a Muslim does not mean I, a non-Muslim, have to believe that. I am free to disagree, just as I disagree on other aspects of Islamic teaching.
My disbelief and disagreement, however, doesn’t change that it is Islamic teaching.
That aside, I also think that statements like “no one is born an x” are not helpful, both because they lack the important qualifier “in my opinion” or “I believe,” and they ignore that what is actually meant in English by “born an x” is “born into an x family and x culture.”
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
Actually, according to traditional Islamic teaching, all children are born Muslim. Some are then brought up in other religions.
I am not a follower of traditional islamic teaching.
I had no misconception that you are.
So, when you said children “are not born Muslim” and “are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim,” what you meant was that is your opinion. As you have said you are not a follower of traditional Muslim teaching, why should your opinion of when someone becomes a Muslim carry any weight?
Besides, I suspect you’re aware that “born x” is a very common way of saying “born into an x family and an x culture.”
Would we who are not Muslim, or that kind of Muslim, say that God sees anyone as “born Muslim”? Muslims (or some Muslims) may believe that, but if we don’t think Islam describes the universe as well as Christianity (or another religion, or no religion) does, then why talk as if we’re uncertain about the “born Muslim” idea?
Because when it comes to the question “who is a Muslim?” (which missed different from the question “who does God see as born Muslim?”), the Islamic understanding is relevant, just as the Jewish understanding is relevant to “who is a Jew?” and the Christian understanding* is relevant to the question of “who is a Christian?”
It’s not for an outsider to create definitions and criteria as to who is and who isn’t a member of a religion.
*Yes, I readily acknowledge there is more than one Christian understanding.
Re "Because when it comes to the question “who is a Muslim?” (which missed different from the question “who does God see as born Muslim?”)," I am not sure what the difference is, if we're talking about whether someone truly is or is not something.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
Actually, according to traditional Islamic teaching, all children are born Muslim. Some are then brought up in other religions.
And if you add this, how does this not mean that I need to be open to the idea that I myself (along with you and everyone else) was born Muslim, since some Muslims believe it?
That Islamic teaching may say that my great-nephew born two days ago is a Muslim does not mean I, a non-Muslim, have to believe that. I am free to disagree, just as I disagree on other aspects of Islamic teaching.
My disbelief and disagreement, however, doesn’t change that it is Islamic teaching.
That aside, I also think that statements like “no one is born an x” are not helpful, both because they lack the important qualifier “in my opinion” or “I believe,” and they ignore that what is actually meant in English by “born an x” is “born into an x family and x culture.”
I do agree that "I believe" is important. As for "they ignore that what is actually meant in English by “born an x” is “born into an x family and x culture,"" I haven't really used "born an x" that way precisely because I don't believe someone is born a Christian, Buddhist, Democrat, Republican--raised, yes, but not born, not the moment they're out of the womb. There is the matter of whether (in the Catholic end of the spectrum of Christian belief, in which I will include Anglican--as the words in the BCP say, "N., you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism and marked as Christ's own for ever. Amen") someone counts as being a Christian from baptism on, which often happens in infancy--not all Christians believe in infant baptism, of course--but that's still not how they're born.
There is the matter of whether (in the Catholic end of the spectrum of Christian belief, in which I will include Anglican--as the words in the BCP say, "N., you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism and marked as Christ's own for ever. Amen") someone counts as being a Christian from baptism on, which often happens in infancy--not all Christians believe in infant baptism, of course--but that's still not how they're born.
All that indicates is that you have a different measure of when someone is included in the community of faith than (at least) some Muslims do.
There is the matter of whether (in the Catholic end of the spectrum of Christian belief, in which I will include Anglican--as the words in the BCP say, "N., you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism and marked as Christ's own for ever. Amen") someone counts as being a Christian from baptism on, which often happens in infancy--not all Christians believe in infant baptism, of course--but that's still not how they're born.
All that indicates is that you have a different measure of when someone is included in the community of faith than (at least) some Muslims do.
We will have to disagree on that. Peace be with you, regardless.
There is the matter of whether (in the Catholic end of the spectrum of Christian belief, in which I will include Anglican--as the words in the BCP say, "N., you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism and marked as Christ's own for ever. Amen") someone counts as being a Christian from baptism on, which often happens in infancy--not all Christians believe in infant baptism, of course--but that's still not how they're born.
All that indicates is that you have a different measure of when someone is included in the community of faith than (at least) some Muslims do.
We will have to disagree on that. Peace be with you, regardless.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
There is the matter of whether (in the Catholic end of the spectrum of Christian belief, in which I will include Anglican--as the words in the BCP say, "N., you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism and marked as Christ's own for ever. Amen") someone counts as being a Christian from baptism on, which often happens in infancy--not all Christians believe in infant baptism, of course--but that's still not how they're born.
All that indicates is that you have a different measure of when someone is included in the community of faith than (at least) some Muslims do.
We will have to disagree on that. Peace be with you, regardless.
Disagree all you like, that's what they believe.
I don't disagree that that's what they believe (or technically that they believe that everyone is born Muslim), if there's any confusion on that.
More technically, Islam teaches:
Yes, every newborn is born in a state of purity in which he is ready to accept the belief in Allah and His Oneness which is the fitrah. Then, his parents either teach him according to this fitrah or take him apart from the Right Path via teaching him wrong creeds and beliefs.
Yes I know Christian Palestinians identify as Arab. They refer to God as Allah. Same with some Lebanese Christians--not all Lebanese are Arab, you know. There is a good smattering of Armenians, Kurds, Turks and even French there. Ethnic groups do not equate to religious groups. But to try to narrow the Arab vote down to just the American Palestinians does not compute.
If those states had stayed blue, we would be addressing the president elect as Madam.
To say that ethnicity and faith are not the same is not accepted across the world. Try being a Christian in a Muslim country. What about the old Soviet Union or China today. You could say that they are individual cases but they are at least aiming for faith/atheism to be ethnic.
That doesn't make them the same. It makes them linked, connected.
Many of my Muslim friends don’t see a difference between beliefs and identity. There is no real difference. Food laws, attitudes to alcohol etc are just there. It is not a choice. They are born Muslim.
They are not born Muslim. They are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim.
All are, everyone is, born Muslim.
In the same way that everyone is born an extraterrestrial refugee from the planet Xenu.
@chrisstiles Maybe we're debating about terminology here, or possibly ontology itself. I don't believe--regardless of whether Muslims believe, and I know they do--that we are all born Muslim, and I don't merely believe that "All that indicates is that you have a different measure of when someone is included in the community of faith than (at least) some Muslims do"--specifically that this is "all" that that indicates. That's the main/only part I was saying "I disagree" with. Obviously you may indeed believe that this is all that that indicates--which is what I was disagreeing with. Not that Muslims believe it.
(I may need food. Or I should outline (I., II., III., A., B., C., 1., 2., 3., etc.) my comments before making them into a post.)
This is getting very off topic. If you want to carry on discussing this, may I suggest a new thread? (In Purgatory or possibly Epiphanies depending on exactly what you want to talk about.)
The President Elect seems to have gone quiet. I am sure he will come up with scheme soon
He has not been very publicly available since the election. It seems likely that his well known physical decrepitude and likely mental incapacities are catching up with him, as evidenced by him playing catch-up when president-not-elect Musk torpedoed the continuing resolution to keep the federal government open.
As far as Trump's intentions towards Greenland, Panama, or Canada, during his first term he was particularly bloody minded in using American force abroad, using it for assassinations and vastly escalating the drone war*. However, he was very reluctant to commit American ground forces anywhere. I'm guessing he didn't want to do anything that would generate a large number of flag-draped coffins (and the accompanying bad publicity). Seizing new territories by force is something that's pretty much guaranteed to get a lot of American troops killed. On the other hand, Trump also knows that he'll never have to face the voters again, so maybe his cost-benefit analysis has changed.
* One of the things that Joe Biden has received almost no public credit for is ending America's drone war. On the other hand, it seems likely that the media which reports such things doesn't find this action creditable, which seems the most likely explanation for the lack of public attention to this fact.
Seizing Panama by force in '90 certainly got a lot of Panamanian Americans killed, a hundred times as many US Americans. That ratio would be an order of magnitude less for Greenland I imagine. What would the score be against Canada? How good are Montreal's air defences?
Meanwhile what's Trump going to do about China's inexorable blockade of Taiwan?
Meanwhile what's Trump going to do about China's inexorable blockade of Taiwan?
Who knows. He simultaneously says he wants to get tough on China, while also saying he doesn't wanna defend Taiwan unless they pony up more cash. Which might not, technically, be contradictory positions, but really don't jive together in the context of traditional US foreign policy, because Beijing would interpret a US retreat from Taiwan as a sign of weakness.
Personally, I think if it got to the point where Taiwan faced an existential threat from China, Trump would be corralled into falling in line with the standing US position and expending whatever money and manpower needed to defend the island.
Interesting Guardian article indicating that European countries are much more apprehensive about Trump 2.0 than most other countries. I was particularly interested to see that respondents from India, South Africa and Brazil strongly believed that a Trump presidency was good news for their country. Why so? (The positive views from Russia and China are also interesting, but I feel I have more of a handle on why they might have voted that way).
Meanwhile what's Trump going to do about China's inexorable blockade of Taiwan?
Who knows. He simultaneously says he wants to get tough on China, while also saying he doesn't wanna defend Taiwan unless they pony up more cash. Which might not, technically, be contradictory positions, but really don't jive together in the context of traditional US foreign policy, because Beijing would interpret a US retreat from Taiwan as a sign of weakness.
Personally, I think if it got to the point where Taiwan faced an existential threat from China, Trump would be corralled into falling in line with the standing US position and expending whatever money and manpower needed to defend the island.
China will surround Taiwan with territorial water around artificial reefs. Might take a while...
Leaders of the countries Trump is saying he will change have come back at him. Canada has answered his push for a certain person to run for Prime Minister has had to explain that in a parliamentary system you cannot run for Prime Minister. He is a laughing stock.
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
Well, it's not like his first term had a mass killing spree around the world, outside of maybe existing theatres-of-conflict which everyone just kind of accepts as part of the furniture anyway.
I am curious about the apparent apprehension in the ROK, whether it's people afraid he'll he too belligerent against the North, or too dovish. I'm guessing both views are represented among the negative responses, with most of it being concern that he'll threaten to withdraw the troops again.
I wonder with his criminal record if there are countries to which he is not admissible. I just saw a new acronym on FB to describe him FOTUS. Felon of the United States.
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
What measure are you using? Most ones I've seen (which are admittedly a few months old) show him and Biden generally had low global ratings, with Biden marginally ahead.
I wonder with his criminal record if there are countries to which he is not admissible. I just saw a new acronym on FB to describe him FOTUS. Felon of the United States.
Well, wasn't Keith Richards able to re-enter Canada to do concerts after his drug conviction in 1978? I assume people like that get in on business visas, with different rules.
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
What measure are you using? Most ones I've seen (which are admittedly a few months old) show him and Biden generally had low global ratings, with Biden marginally ahead.
I am talking about this survey here by the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The website pithily summarises the results as: "In short, Trump's return is lamented by America's long-term allies but almost nobody else" (my emphasis).
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
What measure are you using? Most ones I've seen (which are admittedly a few months old) show him and Biden generally had low global ratings, with Biden marginally ahead.
I am talking about this survey here by the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The website pithily summarises the results as: "In short, Trump's return is lamented by America's long-term allies but almost nobody else" (my emphasis).
Given that in 2020, global approval ratings for Trump were fairly low:
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
What measure are you using? Most ones I've seen (which are admittedly a few months old) show him and Biden generally had low global ratings, with Biden marginally ahead.
I am talking about this survey here by the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The website pithily summarises the results as: "In short, Trump's return is lamented by America's long-term allies but almost nobody else" (my emphasis).
Given that in 2020, global approval ratings for Trump were fairly low:
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
What measure are you using? Most ones I've seen (which are admittedly a few months old) show him and Biden generally had low global ratings, with Biden marginally ahead.
I am talking about this survey here by the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The website pithily summarises the results as: "In short, Trump's return is lamented by America's long-term allies but almost nobody else" (my emphasis).
Given that in 2020, global approval ratings for Trump were fairly low:
Well, it probably depends on the country, and how that particular country experienced the Biden years, and what they're expecting from the incoming Trump administration.
Well, it probably depends on the country, and how that particular country experienced the Biden years, and what they're expecting from the incoming Trump administration.
One thing you have to take into account...
Each country is almost certainly examining the Trump return through the lens of its own self-interest, or even more narrowly just the interests of the ruling party, with various issues at play which very few of us are gonna have the slightest idea about.
As an example I've mentioned before, Trump's wing-dings with Kim Jeong-un were not, as some claimed, "a betrayal of our South Korean allies", given that the ruling party at that time harboured a position on Communism ranging, mutatis mutandis, from about Willy Brandt to Baader-Meinhof Adjacent. But I rarely heard anyone critiquing Trump's bromantic pursuits on the peninsula display any knowledge of the internal politics of the ROK.
(Not saying who is/was right or wrong on any of these issues, or what Korean opinion would be like today. Just that, if you want to know why a particular country's people are reacting as they are to developments in American politics, it really helps to have some familiarity with that country's pre-existing politics and interests.)
Comments
Communism
The Queen's authority was delegated to her ministers.
I’m confused—was something left out here?
Thar was my assumption.
Sorry, draft post that I thought had gone snuck in.
No worries!
I am not a follower of traditional islamic teaching.
That was not mentioned in the oath I took.
I'm not sure that's a meaningful distinction. Does it matter whether a child acquires a (perhaps nominal) religion at the time of birth, or through enculturation throughout their formative years?
That's your opinion and I have my opinion. It's a bit like football. You are not born a supporter of any particular team. More often than not, you decide to follow the same team as your family.
Not true. Some beliefs say you are because say your mother or father is one. Choosing to leave can be difficult and sometimes dangerous.
So, when you said children “are not born Muslim” and “are not Muslim untill their family tells them they are Muslim,” what you meant was that is your opinion. As you have said you are not a follower of traditional Muslim teaching, why should your opinion of when someone becomes a Muslim carry any weight?
Besides, I suspect you’re aware that “born x” is a very common way of saying “born into an x family and an x culture.”
Questions of birth location could become very relevant if Trump re-instates his ban on travel and immigration from predominantly Muslim countries. If you were born in Somalia (for example) the first Trump administration* considered you a Muslim regardless of your actual religious beliefs. It seems likely that a second Trump administration will take a similar position.
Would we who are not Muslim, or that kind of Muslim, say that God sees anyone as “born Muslim”? Muslims (or some Muslims) may believe that, but if we don’t think Islam describes the universe as well as Christianity (or another religion, or no religion) does, then why talk as if we’re uncertain about the “born Muslim” idea? (Are there any Muslims here in the Ship who could weigh in?)
It’s not for an outsider to create definitions and criteria as to who is and who isn’t a member of a religion.
*Yes, I readily acknowledge there is more than one Christian understanding.
Re "Because when it comes to the question “who is a Muslim?” (which missed different from the question “who does God see as born Muslim?”)," I am not sure what the difference is, if we're talking about whether someone truly is or is not something.
And if you add this, how does this not mean that I need to be open to the idea that I myself (along with you and everyone else) was born Muslim, since some Muslims believe it?
My disbelief and disagreement, however, doesn’t change that it is Islamic teaching.
That aside, I also think that statements like “no one is born an x” are not helpful, both because they lack the important qualifier “in my opinion” or “I believe,” and they ignore that what is actually meant in English by “born an x” is “born into an x family and x culture.”
I do agree that "I believe" is important. As for "they ignore that what is actually meant in English by “born an x” is “born into an x family and x culture,"" I haven't really used "born an x" that way precisely because I don't believe someone is born a Christian, Buddhist, Democrat, Republican--raised, yes, but not born, not the moment they're out of the womb. There is the matter of whether (in the Catholic end of the spectrum of Christian belief, in which I will include Anglican--as the words in the BCP say, "N., you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism and marked as Christ's own for ever. Amen") someone counts as being a Christian from baptism on, which often happens in infancy--not all Christians believe in infant baptism, of course--but that's still not how they're born.
All that indicates is that you have a different measure of when someone is included in the community of faith than (at least) some Muslims do.
/back to the thread topic
We will have to disagree on that. Peace be with you, regardless.
Disagree all you like, that's what they believe.
All are, everyone is, born Muslim.
I don't disagree that that's what they believe (or technically that they believe that everyone is born Muslim), if there's any confusion on that.
More technically, Islam teaches:
https://aboutislam.net/counseling/ask-the-scholar/dawah-principles/are-all-people-born-muslims/
In the same way that everyone is born an extraterrestrial refugee from the planet Xenu.
(I may need food. Or I should outline (I., II., III., A., B., C., 1., 2., 3., etc.) my comments before making them into a post.)
(Or both.)
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
He has not been very publicly available since the election. It seems likely that his well known physical decrepitude and likely mental incapacities are catching up with him, as evidenced by him playing catch-up when president-not-elect Musk torpedoed the continuing resolution to keep the federal government open.
As far as Trump's intentions towards Greenland, Panama, or Canada, during his first term he was particularly bloody minded in using American force abroad, using it for assassinations and vastly escalating the drone war*. However, he was very reluctant to commit American ground forces anywhere. I'm guessing he didn't want to do anything that would generate a large number of flag-draped coffins (and the accompanying bad publicity). Seizing new territories by force is something that's pretty much guaranteed to get a lot of American troops killed. On the other hand, Trump also knows that he'll never have to face the voters again, so maybe his cost-benefit analysis has changed.
* One of the things that Joe Biden has received almost no public credit for is ending America's drone war. On the other hand, it seems likely that the media which reports such things doesn't find this action creditable, which seems the most likely explanation for the lack of public attention to this fact.
Meanwhile what's Trump going to do about China's inexorable blockade of Taiwan?
Who knows. He simultaneously says he wants to get tough on China, while also saying he doesn't wanna defend Taiwan unless they pony up more cash. Which might not, technically, be contradictory positions, but really don't jive together in the context of traditional US foreign policy, because Beijing would interpret a US retreat from Taiwan as a sign of weakness.
Personally, I think if it got to the point where Taiwan faced an existential threat from China, Trump would be corralled into falling in line with the standing US position and expending whatever money and manpower needed to defend the island.
China will surround Taiwan with territorial water around artificial reefs. Might take a while...
Well, it's not like his first term had a mass killing spree around the world, outside of maybe existing theatres-of-conflict which everyone just kind of accepts as part of the furniture anyway.
I am curious about the apparent apprehension in the ROK, whether it's people afraid he'll he too belligerent against the North, or too dovish. I'm guessing both views are represented among the negative responses, with most of it being concern that he'll threaten to withdraw the troops again.
What measure are you using? Most ones I've seen (which are admittedly a few months old) show him and Biden generally had low global ratings, with Biden marginally ahead.
Well, wasn't Keith Richards able to re-enter Canada to do concerts after his drug conviction in 1978? I assume people like that get in on business visas, with different rules.
I am talking about this survey here by the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The website pithily summarises the results as: "In short, Trump's return is lamented by America's long-term allies but almost nobody else" (my emphasis).
Given that in 2020, global approval ratings for Trump were fairly low:
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/01/08/trump-ratings-remain-low-around-globe-while-views-of-u-s-stay-mostly-favorable/
Perhaps it's a comparative reflection on how the Rest of the World views America at the end of the Biden administration.
The suggestion being "so badly that the prospect of Trump 2.0 seems excellent in comparison"?
I wouldn't put it in such stark terms, but there seems to be an element of that, yes.
Well, it probably depends on the country, and how that particular country experienced the Biden years, and what they're expecting from the incoming Trump administration.
One thing you have to take into account...
Each country is almost certainly examining the Trump return through the lens of its own self-interest, or even more narrowly just the interests of the ruling party, with various issues at play which very few of us are gonna have the slightest idea about.
As an example I've mentioned before, Trump's wing-dings with Kim Jeong-un were not, as some claimed, "a betrayal of our South Korean allies", given that the ruling party at that time harboured a position on Communism ranging, mutatis mutandis, from about Willy Brandt to Baader-Meinhof Adjacent. But I rarely heard anyone critiquing Trump's bromantic pursuits on the peninsula display any knowledge of the internal politics of the ROK.
(Not saying who is/was right or wrong on any of these issues, or what Korean opinion would be like today. Just that, if you want to know why a particular country's people are reacting as they are to developments in American politics, it really helps to have some familiarity with that country's pre-existing politics and interests.)