POL/REL: Taking the Oath of Office on the Koran

[albionmoonlight]

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

And it goes on like this . . .
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on


Two quick points. First, nothing in the laws of the United States nor the rules of Congress indicates what, if anything, someone should do with their hands when they take the oath of office.

Second, sometimes I like to pronounce hyperbole "HYPER-BOWL" in order to shake things up.

[Maple Leafs]

Second, sometimes I like to pronounce hyperbole "HYPER-BOWL" in order to shake things up.
I think we should pronounce "Super Bowl" as "Su-PER-bol-lee".

Let's start doing it and see if we can get it to catch on.

[Telle]

Wow. That guy's got his head so far up his ass he's about to turn inside out.

[cuervo72]

I'm assuming the oath has been taken on the Torah a number of times?

[John Galt]

I'm assuming the oath has been taken on the Torah a number of times?

According to the article/rant, no. But I wouldn't exactly look to that guy for actual facts.

[KWhit]

I think some people don't understand what Freedom of Religion means.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just in case anybody wonders (like I did) exactly what the Cong. Oath of Office says:

http://clerk.house.gov/members/oathoffice.html
Source: Congressional Record (House) - Updated March 10, 2005

OATH OF OFFICE MEMBERS, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER, AND DELEGATES

The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:

"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

has been subscribed to in person and filed in duplicate with the Clerk of the House of Representatives by the following Members of the 109th Congress, pursuant to the provisions of 2 U.S.C. 25

The most obvious question, I guess, is that if this is required as indicated, what does/would an atheist do?

[Passacaglia]

Just in case anybody wonders (like I did) exactly what the Cong. Oath of Office says:

http://clerk.house.gov/members/oathoffice.html
Source: Congressional Record (House) - Updated March 10, 2005

OATH OF OFFICE MEMBERS, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER, AND DELEGATES

The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:

"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

has been subscribed to in person and filed in duplicate with the Clerk of the House of Representatives by the following Members of the 109th Congress, pursuant to the provisions of 2 U.S.C. 25

The most obvious question, I guess, is that if this is required as indicated, what does/would an atheist do?

Laugh as he or she says it?

[Crapshoot]

I believe that atheists have sworn on the Bible before. From my perspective, I don't know why you would want someone who doesn't believe in Christianity to swear on the Bible - if the book is seen as a symbol of something that's important to the person, doesn't a Bible defeat the purpose for an atheist or a Jewish/Muslim person? Hell, do Christians really want non-believers swearing on it if it means nothing to the latter?

[Honolulu_Blue]

And it goes on like this . . .
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on


Two quick points. First, nothing in the laws of the United States nor the rules of Congress indicates what, if anything, someone should do with their hands when they take the oath of office.

Second, sometimes I like to pronounce hyperbole "HYPER-BOWL" in order to shake things up.

I like to pronounce epitome as "Ep-ih-tome". I think it was sounds more like the meaning of the word.

[PSUColonel]

For me, this is just another example of how Islam is being forced upon the U.S., much the way it has been in France and England. While I realize this nation has freedom of religion, it also was "one nation found under god" and has always traditionally been a judeo-christian society. My biggest problem with what is happening here is the America has been losing it's identity little by little each day...namingly it's borders, language, and culture.

[wade moore]

For me, this is just another example of how Islam is being forced upon the U.S., much the way it has been in France and England. While I realize this nation has freedom of religion, it also was "one nation found under god" and has always traditionally been a judeo-christian society. My biggest problem with what is happening here is the America has been losing it's identity little by little each day...namingly it's borders, language, and culture.

I'm going to try and tread very softly here and keep this discussion under as much control as I can.

What harm does it do to the American identity and/or culture for a Muslim to say the oath on the Koran?

Is your issue that he's saying his oath on the Koran or that he's Muslim in the first place?

[Crapshoot]

For me, this is just another example of how Islam is being forced upon the U.S., much the way it has been in France and England. While I realize this nation has freedom of religion, it also was "one nation found under god" and has always traditionally been a judeo-christian society. My biggest problem with what is happening here is the America has been losing it's identity little by little each day...namingly it's borders, language, and culture.

He's not asking you to do it -he's asking that if he's supposed to swear on a symbol of faith, it ought to be his faith - it means nothing if he's swearing on a religion he doesn't believe in. Seriously - you'd prefer a fake promise on something he doesn't believe in?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Just in case anybody wonders (like I did) exactly what the Cong. Oath of Office says:

http://clerk.house.gov/members/oathoffice.html
Source: Congressional Record (House) - Updated March 10, 2005

OATH OF OFFICE MEMBERS, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER, AND DELEGATES

The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:

"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

has been subscribed to in person and filed in duplicate with the Clerk of the House of Representatives by the following Members of the 109th Congress, pursuant to the provisions of 2 U.S.C. 25

The most obvious question, I guess, is that if this is required as indicated, what does/would an atheist do?

I'd just say the words. The last sentence wouldn't have any meaning to me, but if it's required, so be it. I mean, at Thanksgiving dinner last week and made the "sign of the cross" and said grace before dinner with my family. The gesture and words were meaningless to me personally, but easy enough to do and say and made my grandma happy.

It doesn't appear as if the bible is required, so I might ask to do without that aspect of it.

[Dutch]

No Muslim, Jew, or Atheist should swear on the Bible. Pointless.

[PSUColonel]

He's not asking you to do it -he's asking that if he's supposed to swear on a symbol of faith, it ought to be his faith - it means nothing if he's swearing on a religion he doesn't believe in. Seriously - you'd prefer a fake promise on something he doesn't believe in?

A good point indeed, I for one however see it as another step away from "the way things have always been". I fully admit I am an American traditionalist. I also beleive that part of the plan of Islam is take over democracies little at a time through cultural, and law changes over a long peroid of time. Islamic clerics know they cannot defeat us militarily, so this is what we are getting. What is happening in this instance is one small example of what I am talking about. Ask yourself this: Is this being applauded by our enemies in the liddle east?

[QuikSand]

I seem to recall phrases like "pains and penalties of perjury" being used for courtroom swearings-in of those requesting a non-biblical method. I always thought that was a real leap of faith... that the pains and penalties of perjury were equally foreboding to a non-religious person as the almighty would be to a believer.

[Honolulu_Blue]

A good point indeed, I for one however see it as another step away from "the way things have always been". I fully admit I am an American traditionalist. I also beleive that part of the plan of Islam is take over democracies little at a time through cultural, and law changes over a long peroid of time. Islamic clerics know they cannot defeat us militarily, so this is what we are getting. What is happening in this instance is one small example of what I am talking about. Ask yourself this: Is this being applauded by our enemies in the liddle east?

An "American Traditionalist"? What does that mean? How traditional are we talking? What values does an "American Traditionalist" adhere to?

Are you upset about emancipation? Do you miss the Three-Fifths Compromise? What about women's right to vote? Segregation? Do Amendments 11-27 offend you?

[PSUColonel]

It means I am more likely to adhere to the status quo, rather than be an agent for change. It doesn't mean I am against change, it just means I am more likely to be very careful about change, and watch how is progresses on a day to day level, and even be mindful of it's potential consequences/benefits.

[Honolulu_Blue]

It means I am more likely to adhere to the status quo, rather than be an agent for change. It doesn't mean I am against change, it just means I am more likely to be very careful about change, and watch how is progresses on a day to day level, and even be mindful of it's potential consequences/benefits.

Ah, I think what you really mean is "conservative."

Check it out:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative

[John Galt]

Ah, I think what you really mean is "conservative."

Check it out:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative

No, he means he doesn't recognize hip hop as part of American culture.

[PSUColonel]

Ah, I think what you really mean is "conservative."

Check it out:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative



Yes, I am a conservative...great now that we've established that. Jeeezsh.

[JPhillips]

Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[finketr]

would anyone have even noticed if the representative hadn't chosen to "announce" his intent?

Wait until a Hindu gets elected to office.. or a shintoist, or buddhist, etc...

Can i swear on a statue of Ganesh, Kali, Shiva, Sita, etc?

[bob]

Maybe this should be another discussion, but what is American culture really? Isn't it a melting pot of other cultures?

[wade moore]

It means I am more likely to adhere to the status quo, rather than be an agent for change. It doesn't mean I am against change, it just means I am more likely to be very careful about change, and watch how is progresses on a day to day level, and even be mindful of it's potential consequences/benefits.

You still have not said what is harmful about this specific change.

And I'm still curious as to whether it is the swearing on the Koran that bothers your, or if it is that a Muslim is going into office.

[finketr]

For me, this is just another example of how Islam is being forced upon the U.S., much the way it has been in France and England. While I realize this nation has freedom of religion, it also was "one nation found under god" and has always traditionally been a judeo-christian society. My biggest problem with what is happening here is the America has been losing it's identity little by little each day...namingly it's borders, language, and culture.

Right... and christianity being forced upon the U.S. is better?
You don't think that Allah isn't the same God as YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc? Muslims revere Abraham, Mary, and other biblical figures.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

That is a terribly untraditionally American Article!!! It has no place in our Constitution!

[heybrad]

And I'm still curious as to whether it is the swearing on the Koran that bothers your, or if it is that a Muslim is going into office.
Thats what I was thinking as well. Let's remember that this guy was voted in by the American public. Are you suggesting he duped the voters?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Maybe this should be another discussion, but what is American culture really? Isn't it a melting pot of other cultures?

Apparently so long as that culture does not include hip hop, yes.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Yes, I am a conservative...great now that we've established that. Jeeezsh.

Hey, don't blame me for this. I'm not the one who started throwing around that "American Traditionalist" nonsense.

[Ryche]

It seems to me the point of having your hand on the Bible when taking the oath is that you are swearing to your god as represented by the Bible. So if that isn't your god, it makes sense to do something else. And since it's not specified in law that you have to swear on the Bible, what difference does it make?

Considering the oath and Article VI seem to be at conflict, I doubt an atheist would be denied office if the left So Help Me God off the end of the oath.

[Drake]

I seem to recall phrases like "pains and penalties of perjury" being used for courtroom swearings-in of those requesting a non-biblical method. I always thought that was a real leap of faith... that the pains and penalties of perjury were equally foreboding to a non-religious person as the almighty would be to a believer.

You should hear the Masonic oaths. If they don't scare the bejeezus out of you, nothing ever will.

[Drake]

dola...

I'd tell you what those oaths are, of course, but then I'd have to kill you. Or kill myself. I don't remember exactly.

[Crapshoot]

would anyone have even noticed if the representative hadn't chosen to "announce" his intent?

Wait until a Hindu gets elected to office.. or a shintoist, or buddhist, etc...

Can i swear on a statue of Ganesh, Kali, Shiva, Sita, etc?

I'm curious - I'm a non-practicing Hindu. If I'm elected, my faith (if it was practiced) is less deserving in some way?

[Drake]

I'm a non-practicing guitarist.

[PSUColonel]

You still have not said what is harmful about this specific change.

And I'm still curious as to whether it is the swearing on the Koran that bothers your, or if it is that a Muslim is going into office.

I also beleive that part of the plan of Islam is take over democracies little at a time through cultural, and law changes over a long peroid of time. Islamic clerics know they cannot defeat us militarily, so this is what we are getting. What is happening in this instance is one small example of what I am talking about. Ask yourself this: Is this being applauded by our enemies in the middle east? In other words, I beleive our enemies are using our own freedoms against us, and that we are sitting there on the sidelines saying "good for you".

[Desnudo]

For me, this is just another example of how Islam is being forced upon the U.S., much the way it has been in France and England. While I realize this nation has freedom of religion, it also was "one nation found under god" and has always traditionally been a judeo-christian society. My biggest problem with what is happening here is the America has been losing it's identity little by little each day...namingly it's borders, language, and culture.

I for one am still pissed they stopped burning witches and putting scarlet A's on slutty women.

[heybrad]

I also beleive that part of the plan of Islam is take over democracies little at a time through cultural, and law changes over a long peroid of time. Islamic clerics know they cannot defeat us militarily, so this is what we are getting. What is happening in this instance is one small example of what I am talking about. Ask yourself this: Is this being applauded by our enemies in the middle east? In other words, I beleive our enemies are using our own freedoms against us, and that we are sitting there on the sidelines saying "good for you".
I guess I'll ask again... You realize he was elected by the American public, right? Are you suggesting he duped everybody into believing he was a Christian?

[PSUColonel]

I for one am still pissed they stopped burning witches and putting scarlet A's on slutty women.



I don't know whay so many of you sit there and make light of this when history has clearly told us what many of the Islamic leaders in the world want to do to western society.

[Dutch]

Considering the oath and Article VI seem to be at conflict, I doubt an atheist would be denied office if the left So Help Me God off the end of the oath.

He will not be denied entry to his position, and I would be dissapointed if the atheist did say any allegiance towards God. I would think it's in an atheist's best interest to remain mute at that point or change what he says to better reflect his faith than to get through a swearing in by lying.

[Drake]

I for one am still pissed they stopped burning witches and putting scarlet A's on slutty women.

I totally agree, especially now that Drive-Ins are starting to disappear. It's like the fabric of our society is unraveling before our eyes.

[bob]

I for one am still pissed they stopped burning witches and putting scarlet A's on slutty women.

I'm really pissed about that - the slutty women were easier to find back then.

[Drake]

No doubt. Now you have to drive all the way down to the skating rink to find the slutty women.

[Crapshoot]

I for one am still pissed they stopped burning witches and putting scarlet A's on slutty women.

Seriously - and that whole owning people bit - why not, I say?

[heybrad]

I don't know whay so many of you sit there and make light of this when history has clearly told us what many of the Islamic leaders in the world want to do to western society.
I'm trying my best to subscribe to your newsletter here, so just confirm for me please. Are you saying that this guys thinking is in line with Islamic clerics and that he wants to destroy the US, but if we make him swear on the Bible we'll all be ok?

[Drake]

Seriously - and that whole owning people bit - why not, I say?

Pfft. My wife has owned me for 13 years. I don't know what gave you the impression that this ever went away.

[heybrad]

No, that is not my point. My point is there have been many other non-christians elected to public office who simply took the oath as it was administered. But now, I almost get the feeling because we are dealing with Islam, that won't be the case.
So if he swears on the Bible, you're ok with him being in Congress? All of your other concerns go away right?

[wade moore]

So if he swears on the Bible, you're ok with him being in Congress? All of your other concerns go away right?

You're trying to drive to the same point as me here that I don't think PSU has answered yet, he's danced around the question here.

Would you be happy if this same Muslim electee swore on the Bible? Would you only be happy if he was a non-Muslim swearing on the Bible? Maybe a Christian swearing on the Koran?

I'm not sure that I understand what would make you ok with this situation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... do Christians really want non-believers swearing on it if it means nothing to the latter?

That, to some extent, is why Prager's column had me scratching my head.

On the one hand, I think I see what he's getting at -- basically trivializing the general tradition of swearing on a Bible by replacing it with another book (under the current circumstances, the Koran just adds insult to injury, but I don't get the impression that his overall point is meant to be specific to the Koran either).

But on the other hand, since having him use a Bible (or having an atheist use a Bible, or whatever) wouldn't really carry the traditional meaning, then I'm not sure why it would be a point for discussion.

Although if I'm right in my interpretation of what he's really getting at, then this isn't about the one guy & this one case, rather it's just a symptom of a larger & more serious issue.

Then again, there's also a possibility that the guy cut Prager off for a parking space or something.

[JPhillips]

So let's examine our freedoms and see which one's are dangerous.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Well obviously religion, speech, assembly and petition are tools for the terrorists to undermine us.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Terrorists use guns. Gotta go.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

We'll put our soldiers wherever its needed to protect us.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you can't conduct unreasonable searches the terrorists win.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There's so many words here that I'm sure a fancy pants lawyer could use it to free terrorists. Should be condensed to "the ATF can't take my land"

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Complete bullshit. Its like they were trying to give the country to the Ottoman Turks.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

We'll keep this, but write it in invisible ink just in case.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

If torture is good enough for Pol Pot its good enough for us.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You don't have any rights if terrorists kill you.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

See amendment to Amendment IX.


So to really protect our freedoms we should get rid of the Bill of Rights except for a condensed Amendment V and an invisible ink version of Amendment VII. The new Bill of Patriot Rights reads:


The ATF can't take my land

[PSUColonel]

I'm trying my best to subscribe to your newsletter here, so just confirm for me please. Are you saying that this guys thinking is in line with Islamic clerics and that he wants to destroy the US, but if we make him swear on the Bible we'll all be ok?

not at all. What I am saying is that this is another example of how everybody has to go out of their way to accomadate the muslim who is not happy with the way things we have pretty much always been here. It is also a way (and this is what I really think is happening) for this man to get media attention and draw attention to the fact he is the first muslim congressman to be elected to office. That is what I think he is doing. I think he's feeding the entire muslim vs. Western world propaganda machine. What is says to muslim clerics and followers who are hell bend on our distruction is: see we are winning, allah is taking the U.S. This very same thing is happening in England and in France. Believe it or not the muslims who blew up the subway system in London, were either born there as Brits, or had been living there the better part of thier lives. That kind of propaganda is what is feeding much of the fires we fight. It seems like this guy is going out of his way to get it, yet I bet he said in his campaign he would vow to fight terrorism.

[Crapshoot]

That, to some extent, is why Prager's column had me scratching my head.

On the one hand, I think I see what he's getting at -- basically trivializing the general tradition of swearing on a Bible by replacing it with another book (under the current circumstances, the Koran just adds insult to injury, but I don't get the impression that his overall point is meant to be specific to the Koran either).

But on the other hand, since having him use a Bible (or having an atheist use a Bible, or whatever) wouldn't really carry the traditional meaning, then I'm not sure why it would be a point for discussion.

Although if I'm right in my interpretation of what he's really getting at, then this isn't about the one guy & this one case, rather it's just a symptom of a larger & more serious issue.

Then again, there's also a possibility that the guy cut Prager off for a parking space or something.

Yeah, that's why I don't see this as a left-right issue. If I was a devout Christian, I would think I wouldn't want the guy to swear on the Bible, because it almost trivializes the intended meaning.

[Crapshoot]

not at all. What I am saying is that this is another example of how everybody has to go out of thier way to accomadate the muslim who is not happy with the way things we have pretty much always done things here. It is also a way (and this is what I really think is happening) for this man to get media attention and draw attention to the fact that he is the first muslim congressman to be elected to office. That is what I think he is doing. I think he's feeding the entire muslim vs. Western world propahganda machine. What is says to muslim clerics and followers who are hell bend on our distruction is: see we are winning, allah is taking the U.S. This very same thing is happening in England and in France. Beleive it or not the muslims who blew up the subway system in London, were either born there as Brits, or had been living there the better part of thier lives. That kind of propoghanda is what is feeding much of the fires we fight. It seems like this guy is going out of his way to get it, yet I bet he said in his campaign he would vow to fight terrorism.

I "believer" that "their" kind can spell "propaganda" or "accommodate" - so that's already a head start on you.

[PSUColonel]

I "believer" that "their" kind can spell "propaganda" or "accommodate" - so that's already a head start on you.


agreed, but I am typing very quickly, and I don't have time to spell check through mistakes. I have work to do. I know how to spell, trust me, but I need to respond very quickly.

[cartman]

not at all. What I am saying is that this is another example of how everybody has to go out of thier way to accomadate the muslim who is not happy with the way things we have pretty much always done things here. It is also a way (and this is what I really think is happening) for this man to get media attention and draw attention to the fact that he is the first muslim congressman to be elected to office. That is what I think he is doing. I think he's feeding the entire muslim vs. Western world propahganda machine. What is says to muslim clerics and followers who are hell bend on our distruction is: see we are winning, allah is taking the U.S. This very same thing is happening in England and in France. Beleive it or not the muslims who blew up the subway system in London, were either born there as Brits, or had been living there the better part of thier lives. That kind of propoghanda is what is feeding much of the fires we fight. It seems like this guy is going out of his way to get it, yet I bet he said in his campaign he would vow to fight terrorism.

So if in 50 or 100 years, if the Muslims are the majority of a population in a county where they weren't previously, would you then say that a new form of apartheid should be implemented? Or are you saying that they should be kept out of countries because even if they are moderate Muslims, the radical fringe wants to do harm? Just as the KKK wasn't indicative of mainstream Christian thought 60 to 100 years ago, Al-Qaeda isn't indicative of mainstream Muslim thought now.

[RendeR]

this is a total non issue and anyone who thinks it has real merit should get some therapy.

[Dutch]

this is a total non issue and anyone who thinks it has real merit should get some therapy.

Are you talking about all the people who have posted in this thread?

[RendeR]

Are you talking about all the people who have posted in this thread?

No, only those who believe swearing inon the koran or at all truly means anything in this day and age. its a ceremony, nothing more.

[Ryche]

I don't know how much attention to this Ellison is actually trying to draw or where he 'announced' this. It certainly hasn't been in the newspapers or received any attention here in Minnesota.

[Subby]

We aren't at war with Islam. There are plenty of peaceful, non-violent followers of Islam - just like there are plenty of Christian terrorists. If this guy was a Buddhist or a Sikh or a Hindu, I wonder if we would be having the same decibel of debate...

What really matters here is that asking a person of one religion to swear an oath on the holy book of another religion is completely disgraceful and demeaning to that person.

[PSUColonel]

So if in 50 or 100 years, if the Muslims are the majority of a population in a county where they weren't previously, would you then say that a new form of apartheid should be implemented? Or are you saying that they should be kept out of countries because even if they are moderate Muslims, the radical fringe wants to do harm? Just as the KKK wasn't indicative of mainstream Christian thought 60 to 100 years ago, Al-Qaeda isn't indicative of mainstream Muslim thought now.

I think the media and politicians go out their way to to let it be known that the are good muslims, and then there are bad muslims. Here is the fundamental problem: We know what the Koran states about the dealing with infadels, and how to "promote" Islam as a "world" religion. These same people are saying well, only the fundamenalist muslims are taking those scriptures to heart. But my problem is that I don't see a large enough uprise from within the muslim community itself to condem this way of thinking. Rather than think about telling the world what pieces of crap many muslims really are because of their beleifs, the muslim commuinty as a whole gets offened when a bunch of men on an airplane yelling about how great Bin laden is get escorted off the plane in Wisconsin. Why is that? So this is the problem. You have Muslims who claim they don't support what many of the "radicals" do, yet when given the chance to speak out the don't. But when they feel their rights have somehow been trampled on during a war on teror in which most of the suspects are middle eastern, they begin yelling bloody murder. I just find it difficult to trust those who behave in this manner.

[Drake]

What really matters here is that asking a person of one religion to swear an oath on the holy book of another religion is completely disgraceful and demeaning to that person.

Tell that to the Discordians.

[PSUColonel]

We aren't at war with Islam. There are plenty of peaceful, non-violent followers of Islam - just like there are plenty of Christian terrorists. If this guy was a Buddhist or a Sikh or a Hindu, I wonder if we would be having the same decibel of debate...

What really matters here is that asking a person of one religion to swear an oath on the holy book of another religion is completely disgraceful and demeaning to that person.


This is where you are wrong...and so is the President, we ARE at war with Islam, no one wants to admit it though.

[Drake]

I think the media and politicians go out their way to to let it be known that the are good muslims, and then there are bad muslims. Here is the fundamental problem: We know what the Koran states about the dealing with infadels, and how to "promote" Islam as a "world" religion. These same people are saying well, only the fundamenalist muslims are taking those scriptures to heart. But my problem is that I don't see a large enough uprise from within the muslim community itself to condem this way of thinking.

I say this as a devout Christian...you realize the the OT is full of the same sorts of treatment for non-Jews (or non-Christians if you're a fan of Replacement Theology) that we gripe about in the Koran, right? We know not to take those passages as current instructions to go out and kill some infidels. I'm assuming that most of your average, work-a-day Muslims know the same thing about the Koran.

Let's talk about slutty women some more, please.

[Subby]

This is where you are wrong...and so is the President, we ARE at war with Islam, no one wants to admit it though.
I think it is dangerous to take such a monolithic viewpoint here. If you treat them all as enemies, the it becomes self-fulfilling.

[Dutch]

No, only those who believe swearing inon the koran or at all truly means anything in this day and age. its a ceremony, nothing more.

Are you saying that Keith Ellison should go to therapy because he wants to use the Koran instead of the Bible for his swearing in?

[Passacaglia]

This is where you are wrong...and so is the President, we ARE at war with Islam, no one wants to admit it though.

Ya hear that Indonesia? You're next!

[Subby]

Tell that to the Discordians.
I love Wikipedia's ability to immediately dillute the power of obscure references. :D

[Crapshoot]

Ya hear that Indonesia? You're next!

Someone should tell Imran that PSUColonel is at war with him. :D

[heybrad]

How would you even win a war against Islam? Keep fighting until they convert? Retreat? Submit? They're all dead? What?

[Drake]

I think it is dangerous to take such a monolithic viewpoint here.

Don't be too hard on the guy. Everyone knows that monoliths are just big symbols for penises. I'll admit that I'm guilty of seeing things from my penis's viewpoint way too often.

[Dutch]

How would you even win a war against Islam? Keep fighting until they convert? Retreat? Submit? They're all dead? What?

If the Islamo War against Judaism is any indicator, I think it's the "all dead" part.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If the Islamo War against Judaism is any indicator, I think it's the "all dead" part.

I see you beat me to that one.

Ah well, I'm moving furniture all over the friggin' house right now, I suppose that is going to reduce my chances at getting first crack at the obvious.

[Abe Sargent]

I think the media and politicians go out their way to to let it be known that the are good muslims, and then there are bad muslims. Here is the fundamental problem: We know what the Koran states about the dealing with infadels, and how to "promote" Islam as a "world" religion. These same people are saying well, only the fundamenalist muslims are taking those scriptures to heart. But my problem is that I don't see a large enough uprise from within the muslim community itself to condem this way of thinking. Rather than think about telling the world what pieces of crap many muslims really are because of their beleifs, the muslim commuinty as a whole gets offened when a bunch of men on an airplane yelling about how great Bin laden is get escorted off the plane in Wisconsin. Why is that? So this is the problem. You have Muslims who claim they don't support what many of the "radicals" do, yet when given the chance to speak out the don't. But when they feel their rights have somehow been trampled on during a war on teror in which most of the suspects are middle eastern, they begin yelling bloody murder. I just find it difficult to trust those who behave in this manner.



Hello, PSU Colonel. I wanted to address your understanding of Christianity and Islam. I don't particulalrly care about what anybody's opinion is of swearing on one book or another - largely symbolic gestures that hold little weight today. However, this post by you nad triggered several thoughts for me that I wanted to briefly discuss.

By way of background, I am an ordained Baptist minister.

One of your comments is this:

We know what the Koran states about the dealing with infadels, and how to "promote" Islam as a "world" religion.

In fact, if a religion does not want to convert people, or if that is what they claim, then I would be very suspicious of that. I truly believe Christ is my savior and the route to salvation and heaven. Why wouldn't I want to share that with others? Similarly, why wouldn't a Muslim who also sincerely beleives in an alterante route want to share that? This is not suspect but a foundational rock of many religions, especially Christianity:

This is a quote from Jesus to his disciples after he was raisied from the dead just before the Ascension. It is commonly referred to as The Great Commission.

“All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Mt. 28:18-20 ASV).

"All nations...unto the ends of the world" Sounds like Christianity wants to do the exact thing you accuse Islam of wanting.


You later claim this:

You have Muslims who claim they don't support what many of the "radicals" do, yet when given the chance to speak out the don't.

To be fair, if this were true, I'd think you have a good point. I'm not sure it is true, of course, and I'd want documentation of when or if major Muslim organizations refused to denounce terrorism.

However, if you think failure to denounce radicals in your own faith is merely a Muslim thing, think again. Here's another key scripture from Christianity:

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:8)

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)

Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other. (1 Thessalonians 4:9)

I could, of course, post another 100 scriptures that says that God is love or that God loves us all. This is a founding truth of the Christian faith.

So why do Christians just walk by when extremsists are holding up the "God Hates Fags" signs? Why do Christians turn their back and refuse to speak when other people who claim to be Christian speak a gospel of hate?

Think that's merely a facet of Islam? It's not, I assure you.

-Anxiety

[Raiders Army]

No, only those who believe swearing inon the koran or at all truly means anything in this day and age. its a ceremony, nothing more.

Perhaps to you, but there are plenty of people that take this seriously. I, for one, don't take it seriously but I recognize that it's quite important to others. I think there are still quite a few of them out there.

[Raiders Army]

On the other topic, freedom of religion shouldn't just be practiced in theory.

[wade moore]

not at all. What I am saying is that this is another example of how everybody has to go out of their way to accomadate the muslim who is not happy with the way things we have pretty much always been here. It is also a way (and this is what I really think is happening) for this man to get media attention and draw attention to the fact he is the first muslim congressman to be elected to office. That is what I think he is doing. I think he's feeding the entire muslim vs. Western world propaganda machine. What is says to muslim clerics and followers who are hell bend on our distruction is: see we are winning, allah is taking the U.S. This very same thing is happening in England and in France. Believe it or not the muslims who blew up the subway system in London, were either born there as Brits, or had been living there the better part of thier lives. That kind of propaganda is what is feeding much of the fires we fight. It seems like this guy is going out of his way to get it, yet I bet he said in his campaign he would vow to fight terrorism.

As far as I can see, the only reason this is getting media attention is from peole like you freaking out about it. I also do not see anywhere that he's "announcing" this or making a big production. Seems to me that no one would know about this if people like you just let it happen and didn't say anything, no one would know the difference unless they have binoculars at the ceremony and publish the pictures all over the internet.

[WVUFAN]

You're trying to drive to the same point as me here that I don't think PSU has answered yet, he's danced around the question here.

Would you be happy if this same Muslim electee swore on the Bible? Would you only be happy if he was a non-Muslim swearing on the Bible? Maybe a Christian swearing on the Koran?

I'm not sure that I understand what would make you ok with this situation.

I can answer that question. But you probably already know what it would be.

[cartman]

I can answer that question. But you probably already know what it would be.

He pretty much gave his answer here:

This is where you are wrong...and so is the President, we ARE at war with Islam, no one wants to admit it though.

[lordscarlet]

To extend upon what someone else says (I'm too lazy too see who): And what if Islam is the majority in the United States in 100 years? What if they hold 90% of the elected offices in the country? So what? You (PSUColonel) have a problem with people choosing their own religion and elected officials? So that means that Islam has "won"? If it does, then who cares? That's just the flow of life. Classic civilization was "won" by christianity in Europe. Christians all but whiped out the native cultures of the United States and South America. It's how we came to be and it's how the future will come to be. The sort of talk you are spewing is what causes these wars. If someone believes in Allah and the teachings of the Koran then they have that right in the United States. If Everyone believes in Allah and the teachings of the Koran then they have that right in the United States.

[lordscarlet]

dola...

I'd tell you what those oaths are, of course, but then I'd have to kill you. Or kill myself. I don't remember exactly.

Are you actually a Mason?

[heybrad]

Christians all but whiped out the native cultures of the United States and South America. It's how we came to be and it's how the future will come to be.
Just think, if those cultures had just had their own damn message board, they could have put a stop to whole thing.

[cuervo72]

To extend upon what someone else says (I'm too lazy too see who): And what if Islam is the majority in the United States in 100 years? What if they hold 90% of the elected offices in the country? So what? You (PSUColonel) have a problem with people choosing their own religion and elected officials? So that means that Islam has "won"? If it does, then who cares? That's just the flow of life. Classic civilization was "won" by christianity in Europe. Christians all but whiped out the native cultures of the United States and South America. It's how we came to be and it's how the future will come to be. The sort of talk you are spewing is what causes these wars. If someone believes in Allah and the teachings of the Koran then they have that right in the United States. If Everyone believes in Allah and the teachings of the Koran then they have that right in the United States.

I think the common fear is that if this happens, those offices wouldn't be elected, and you wouldn't be able to choose a religions. The religion will be Islam, and that's that. And in any event, folks are much more willing to be the wiper than the wipee.

I'm not so sure about the "flow of life" argument. Sure, you can argue that Islam may or may not be trying to do whatever (not meaning to do that here). But "who cares, that's the flow" wouldn't have likely been the best plan in say, dealing with the Nazis for instance.

[Drake]

Are you actually a Mason?

Yes.

And yes, contrary to popular opinion, I'm allowed to tell you that. If I wasn't allowed to tell anyone, why would I drive around with a Masonic license plate? Or wear a Masonic ring?

[lordscarlet]

I think the common fear is that if this happens, those offices wouldn't be elected, and you wouldn't be able to choose a religions. The religion will be Islam, and that's that. And in any event, folks are much more willing to be the wiper than the wipee.

I'm not so sure about the "flow of life" argument. Sure, you can argue that Islam may or may not be trying to do whatever (not meaning to do that here). But "who cares, that's the flow" wouldn't have likely been the best plan in say, dealing with the Nazis for instance.

You obviously took an extreme, but in the case of the United States, as long as it's done within the bounds of the law, as an American Traditionalist, I don't think we should bend the laws to prevent a change in the majority religion.

[Toddzilla]

Hello, PSU Colonel. I wanted to address your understanding of Christianity and Islam....{fantastic post edited}PSUColonel=pwned

Reminds me of a great bumpersticker I saw once (which is where all great thinking resides, on bumpers):

"I believe that when Jesus said 'Love Thy Enemy' he didn't mean kill them"

[AlexB]

I'm a non-practicing guitarist.

In which case you should swear on The Manic Street Preachers 3rd album

http://eil.com/newGallery/Manic-Street-Preachers-The-Holy-Bible-309384.jpg

[Subby]

DEATH TO IMRAN!

[kurtism]

Tell that to the Discordians.

Would a Discordian swear on a golden apple? A copy of the Illuminatus Trilogy? What about the connection between Masons and Discordians? And most importantly, why has the discussion turned away from slutty women?

[sterlingice]

Would a Discordian swear on a golden apple?

They could swear on this and it'd be more amusing:

http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/texta/images/accordion.jpg

Yes, that's right, it's the accordion for Discordians... ok, I'm leaving this thread now. That was awful even for me.

SI

[Drake]

They could swear on this and it'd be more amusing:

http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/texta/images/accordion.jpg

Yes, that's right, it's the accordion for Discordians... ok, I'm leaving this thread now. That was awful even for me.

SI

Hahahaha! No, stay, please!

[sabotai]

Yes.

And yes, contrary to popular opinion, I'm allowed to tell you that. If I wasn't allowed to tell anyone, why would I drive around with a Masonic license plate? Or wear a Masonic ring?

Can I join?

[Ryche]

Funny enough, I work at the MN Secretary of State's office and just before I left for the day we got a call from a rather irate person about this oath and whether it was required that he swear in on the Bible. Glad I wasn't the person who took that call.

[sterlingice]

Can I join?

Lenny: Your membership pack. {hands it to him}
Homer: {pulls out a decal} What's this?
Lenny: You put that sticker on your car so you won't get any tickets. And this other one keeps paramedics from stealing your wallet while they're working on you.
Carl: Oh, and don't bother calling 911 any more...here's the *real* number. {hands him a card with "912"}
Homer: Ooh!

SI

[Warhammer]

Hell, I hope they film the ceremony and put it on Al Jazeera for the Middle East to see. Put a big arrow pointing to the Koran and have big letters saying "The Koran" and let him say "So help me Allah."

[WVUFAN]

So why do Christians just walk by when extremsists are holding up the "God Hates Fags" signs? Why do Christians turn their back and refuse to speak when other people who claim to be Christian speak a gospel of hate?

Here's a difference between Christians and Muslims in the modern age:

We "turn our backs" when radical Christains spout hatred towards homosexuals. Muslims just kill them.

In EVERY SINGLE Islamic Middle East country, being a homosexual is a crime punishable by death.

Before anyone goes off about how "loving" and "caring" Muslims are, just remember that.

[wade moore]

Hell, I hope they film the ceremony and put it on Al Jazeera for the Middle East to see. Put a big arrow pointing to the Koran and have big letters saying "The Koran" and let him say "So help me Allah."

Wow, I didn't expect this from you.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Here's a difference between Christians and Muslims in the modern age:

We "turn our backs" when radical Christains spout hatred towards homosexuals. Muslims just kill them.

In EVERY SINGLE Islamic Middle East country, being a homosexual is a crime punishable by death.

Before anyone goes off about how "loving" and "caring" Muslims are, just remember that.

I'm sure there are quite a few "Christians" who would be in favor of making homosexuality a crime punishable by death. After all, doesn't the Bible say you should kill a man who lies with another man?

[WVUFAN]

I'm sure there are quite a few "Christians" who would be in favor of making homosexuality a crime punishable by death. After all, doesn't the Bible say you should kill a man who lies with another man?

That's true, but those are the exception, hense the reason why it's NOT a law like that. Apparently either the majority of muslims in that country do not disagree with the law, or they're silent about it. Either way, it's still the law there.

In other words, we don't allow the extremists to run things here, dispite what you may think. They do.

[Buccaneer]

The Federal Govt (i.e., Congress) cannot make a law in regards to favoring or unfavoring one religion or another. The majority of those elected throughout our history has professed a belief in a "religious" faith - simply because it is an extention of who we are, as voters. That is why anyone of any faith (or no faith) can be elected and represent those that elected them. (This renders the misunderstood phrase "separation of church/state" irrelevant.) If the representative desires to represent the Muslim faith as an extension of who he is, the Federal Govt cannot and should not say otherwise.

[wade moore]

The Federal Govt (i.e., Congress) cannot make a law in regards to favoring or unfavoring one religion or another. The majority of those elected throughout our history has professed a belief in a "religious" faith - simply because it is an extention of who we are, as voters. That is why anyone of any faith (or no faith) can be elected and represent those that elected them. (This renders the misunderstood phrase "separation of church/state" irrelevant.) If the representative desires to represent the Muslim faith as an extension of who he is, the Federal Govt cannot and should not say otherwise.

I'd love to see someone disagree with you on legality. I just can't fathom someone making that attempt.

I think some folks are disagreeing philosphically. I think those people are so completely wrong, but I don't think anyone is saying that there are existing laws that could prevent this. Just some crap about the Muslims taking over the US and killing all of the Christians if we allow this to happen.

[Klinglerware]

Here's a difference between Christians and Muslims in the modern age:

We "turn our backs" when radical Christains spout hatred towards homosexuals. Muslims just kill them.

In EVERY SINGLE Islamic Middle East country, being a homosexual is a crime punishable by death.

Before anyone goes off about how "loving" and "caring" Muslims are, just remember that.

Actually, not true of the muslim majority countries of Southeast Asia. Remember, much like Catholicism is an overlay over a profoundly Southeast Asian culture in the Philippines, the relationship between Islam and other facets of culture is similar in Indonesia.

Southeast Asians often have a less repressed view of sexuality than your average American. There has always been a tolerance for homosexuality even in places like Indonesia that you may never see in many regions of the US.

[PSUColonel]

The Federal Govt (i.e., Congress) cannot make a law in regards to favoring or unfavoring one religion or another. The majority of those elected throughout our history has professed a belief in a "religious" faith - simply because it is an extention of who we are, as voters. That is why anyone of any faith (or no faith) can be elected and represent those that elected them. (This renders the misunderstood phrase "separation of church/state" irrelevant.) If the representative desires to represent the Muslim faith as an extension of who he is, the Federal Govt cannot and should not say otherwise.



This is correct, the Government itself cannot sanction any particular religion as an official "state religion", but that also does not mean that the word god or other religious symbols can't appear in government buildings, schools etc...


In other words, there is no REAL seperation of church and state, something many have been told by teachers and other misinformed educators over the years.

In regard to this issue, I for one don't think the government can say this man can't be a muslim, but I do think it can say there are certain traditions and customs you must take part in as a job requirement. I.E. the oath of office.

[wade moore]

In regard to this issue, I for one don't think the government can say this man can't be a muslim, but I do think it can say there are certain traditions and customs you must take part in as a job requirement. I.E. the oath of office.

He is taking the oath of office. People have quoted multiple documents that tell the requirements for the oath of office, and he is following every single one.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

That's true, but those are the exception, hense the reason why it's NOT a law like that. Apparently either the majority of muslims in that country do not disagree with the law, or they're silent about it. Either way, it's still the law there.

Kind of like all the uproar we had a couple years ago when people raised up to overturn the anti-sodomy laws in this country. Oh, wait, you mean there wasn't any uprising? I guess that means that the majority of Americans were fine with people being arrested for sodomy. Thank goodness the Supreme Court stepped in.

[PSUColonel]

He is taking the oath of office. People have quoted multiple documents that tell the requirements for the oath of office, and he is following every single one.

Perhaps, but I beleive this is a very slippery slope. What if I decided I am a Nazi, and want to take the oath on Hitler's Mien Kiempf, should that be allowed? How about books and documents written by David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, or Jim Jones?

[wade moore]

Perhaps, but I beleive this is a very slippery slope. What if I decided I am a Nazi, and want to take the oath on Hitler's Mien Kiempf, should that be allowed? How about books and documents written by David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, or Jim Jones?

Edit: By law nothing can stop you. In principle, I feel the fundamentals our country was built on mean that there should be no law to stop you.

[PSUColonel]

Kind of like all the uproar we had a couple years ago when people raised up to overturn the anti-sodomy laws in this country. Oh, wait, you mean there wasn't any uprising? I guess that means that the majority of Americans were fine with people being arrested for sodomy. Thank goodness the Supreme Court stepped in.



I have a problem with sodomy, but the difference between myself and many muslims, is that I am not going to start riots and begin killing people when things don't go my way.

[cartman]

Perhaps, but I beleive this is a very slippery slope. What if I decided I am a Nazi, and want to take the oath on Hitler's Mien Kiempf, should that be allowed? How about books and documents written by David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, or Jim Jones?

Then that person more than likely wouldn't be elected to another term. But if that's what they want to use, so be it. They are saying the same oath as everyone, just using a text they feel most represents their views. You seem to think the guy isn't going to take the oath of office, but make some sort of alliance with Allah. The guy campaigned as a Muslim, so why would it be so surprising that he would want to use the Koran?

I remember back in my American Presidents class in college that a lot of people were upset that Kennedy was Catholic, and that by using a Catholic version of the Bible during his inauguration, some sort of power sharing with the Vatican was going to occur.

[wade moore]

Then that person more than likely wouldn't be elected to another term. But if that's what they want to use, so be it. They are saying the same oath as everyone, just using a text they feel most represents their views. You seem to think the guy isn't going to take the oath of office, but make some sort of alliance with Allah. The guy campaigned as a Muslim, so why would it be so surprising that he would want to use the Koran?

I remember back in my American Presidents class in college that a lot of people were upset that Kennedy was Catholic, and that by using a Catholic version of the Bible during his inauguration, some sort of power sharing with the Vatican was going to occur.

I haven't even bothered bringing up how many parrallels there are to this even in our nations short history. You just replace Christian and Muslim in the discussion with Catholic and Protestant, or whatever.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Perhaps, but I beleive this is a very slippery slope. What if I decided I am a Nazi, and want to take the oath on Hitler's Mien Kiempf, should that be allowed? How about books and documents written by David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, or Jim Jones?

I didn't realize Nazism was a religion, but if that's what you believe and you consider Mein Kampf a holy text, then you should be able to use it to swear an oath.

[wade moore]

I don't even understand the point you're trying to make with that picture. There is absolutely no precedence for this situation. There is no history of an established democratic nation being taken over by a religious minority. All of the mulsim led nations you are bringing up they are coming from a completelyd ifferent background where the culture has always been completely different than the US is now and where they have have been the majority in the area for 1000's of years.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I have a problem with sodomy, but the difference between myself and many muslims, is that I am not going to start riots and begin killing people when things don't go my way.

The problem you seem to have with Muslims is that you see the explosive footage on TV and think that reflects all Muslims. When the KKK was running around in the South, did that mean that every white Southerner was in the KKK and approved of their tactics? Or that every German in Nazi Germany was a Nazi? The bad apples are always the ones that get the most notice. Blood and gore sells.

Remember that there are over a billion Muslims in the world. If the majority of them are violent fundamentalists that want nothing more than to kill us, I think you would see a lot more violence than what you do see. Christians wouldn't be able to go anywhere in the Muslim world without being killed.

[Toddzilla]

Here's a difference between Christians and Muslims in the modern age:

...

In EVERY SINGLE Islamic Middle East country, being a homosexual is a crime punishable by death.Nice clarification - using the countries in the Middle East to paint the whole religion.

[PSUColonel]

The problem you seem to have with Muslims is that you see the explosive footage on TV and think that reflects all Muslims. When the KKK was running around in the South, did that mean that every white Southerner was in the KKK and approved of their tactics? Or that every German in Nazi Germany was a Nazi? The bad apples are always the ones that get the most notice. Blood and gore sells.

Remember that there are over a billion Muslims in the world. If the majority of them are violent fundamentalists that want nothing more than to kill us, I think you would see a lot more violence than what you do see. Christians wouldn't be able to go anywhere in the Muslim world without being killed.


You make a good point, and I just want to point out that you are right, most og the Muslims are not violent extemists who want to kill us all, but you must admit there are an awful lot who sit by and watch and say nothing. Some even go so far as to celebrate when terrorism hits the west, yet they themselves don't participate in the violence. The problem here is an ideaology within the muslim world. While few may participate in the violence, many either sit by idle, or outrightly encourage it.

[wade moore]

You make a good point, and I just want to point out that you are right, most og the Muslims are not violent extemists who want to kill us all, but you must admit there are an awful lot who sit by and watch and say nothing. Some even go so far as to celebrate when terrorism hits the west, yet they themselves don't participate in the violence. The problem here is an ideaology within the muslim world. While few may participate in the violence, many either sit by idle, or outrightly encourage it.

You can take out "muslim country" and insert just many countries that are not industrial, modern societies. You're doing what many do and just attempting to make a correlation that is not there. This is not about being muslim, it's about living in a harsh part of the world that has not fully come into modern society yet.

[Buccaneer]

The problem you seem to have with Muslims is that you see the explosive footage on TV and think that reflects all Muslims. When the KKK was running around in the South, did that mean that every white Southerner was in the KKK and approved of their tactics? Or that every German in Nazi Germany was a Nazi? The bad apples are always the ones that get the most notice. Blood and gore sells.

Remember that there are over a billion Muslims in the world. If the majority of them are violent fundamentalists that want nothing more than to kill us, I think you would see a lot more violence than what you do see. Christians wouldn't be able to go anywhere in the Muslim world without being killed.

Still too high though. :( http://www.christianpersecution.info/

[wade moore]

Still too high though. :( http://www.christianpersecution.info/

Agreed. But, in many of these countries (Iraq included), they're killing their own just as much as they are killing Christians.

I still stand by the fact that this is less about religion and more about culture/state of development of the country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I still stand by the opinion that this is less about religion and more about culture/state of development of the country.

Fixed that for you ;)

[ISiddiqui]

Someone should tell Imran that PSUColonel is at war with him. :D

S'ok, PSUColonel is also at war with reality ;).

the muslim commuinty as a whole gets offened when a bunch of men on an airplane yelling about how great Bin laden is get escorted off the plane in Wisconsin.

Aside from the fact that never hapepned... unless you think complaining about the US's foriegn policy is akin to "how great bin Laden is". In that case, you may have to put even JIMG in the brig!

[wade moore]

Fixed that for you ;)

You're right ;)...

[JonInMiddleGA]

You're right ;)...

Naturally :D

[wade moore]

Sometimes... :D

Fixed that for ya ;)...

[Jonathan Ezarik]

You make a good point, and I just want to point out that you are right, most og the Muslims are not violent extemists who want to kill us all, but you must admit there are an awful lot who sit by and watch and say nothing. Some even go so far as to celebrate when terrorism hits the west, yet they themselves don't participate in the violence. The problem here is an ideaology within the muslim world. While few may participate in the violence, many either sit by idle, or outrightly encourage it.

I think it's more about psychology than ideology. Again, look at Nazi Germany. As long as the violence is directed at someone else and the masses are going along with things, it's easy for individuals to look away or even support it to an extent.

If we used the Bible as our sole basis of the law, we would live in a society very similar to the ones the Islamic fundamentalists want to establish. So, I really don't think there are that many differences in the ideology of the two religions. The difference is in the leadership. With a few exceptions, Christian leaders aren't calling for violence. We need Islamic leaders who will condemn these acts of violence and these need to be the overwhelming voices in the religion. I hope it happens soon, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Drake]

Everyone became a loser when Nazis came up in this thread.

[Drake]

dola...

I fear for a country where innocent message board threads start with slutty women and end with Nazis. We're all doomed.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Wait until the lost ark of the covenant comes up next.

[sterlingice]

Everyone became a loser when Nazis came up in this thread.

No, you're wrong. This man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Godwin) wins http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/MikeGodwin.jpg

SI

[Drake]

Wait until the lost ark of the covenant comes up next.

Great point. Raiders started out with slutty women and ended with Nazis. So, um, does that make Bucc our Indiana Jones?

[Drake]

No, you're wrong. This man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Godwin) wins http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/MikeGodwin.jpg

SI

You've made two posts in this thread and now I've fallen madly in love with you.

Would that be love at first byte?

[Drake]

It's okay, you can groan. That was pretty bad even by my standards.

[sterlingice]

There needs to be some sort of Golden Pun award given to people who are then no longer allowed to post for the next 6 hours ;)

(but I'd lose posts!!11)

SI

[cuervo72]

Everyone became a loser when Nazis came up in this thread.

Was merely pointing out that it isn't smart in all instances to just let things unfold w/o getting involved.

[Drake]

I'd rather we move on the Golden Shower award so we can finally get cuervo72 effectively banned for life.

[Drake]

Was merely pointing out that it isn't smart in all instances to just let things unfold w/o getting involved.

Things unfolding without my involvement is the only way I've gotten laid for the last 13 years.

[Buccaneer]

Great point. Raiders started out with slutty women and ended with Nazis. So, um, does that make Bucc our Indiana Jones?

What did I do now?

[Drake]

I thought you were the logical choice. You're like the only guy at FOFC who has ever spent a significant amount of time outside.

Plus, you're the only person I know older than Harrison Ford. :D

[sterlingice]

What did I do now?

Wear a hat, carry a whip, beat Nazis, have a strong dislike for snakes, look for ancient archeological artifacts. That sort of thing.

SI

[Buccaneer]

I thought you were the logical choice. You're like the only guy at FOFC who has ever spent a significant amount of time outside.

Plus, you're the only person I know older than Harrison Ford. :D

It's not the years, it's the miles. :)

[sterlingice]

It's not the years, it's the miles. :)

Ok, so you're older than the bastardized love child of Methuselah and Otis Nixon? ;)

SI

[Drake]

I'd really love it if bullwhips came into fashion. Nothing says dead sexy like snapping a bullwhip off your belt and flicking things with it.

This is on my list of Things to Accomplish Before I Come to my Senses (tm) right after starting an internet campaign to get people to erect weird/funny/inappropriate signs and designs in their yards that will show up in the satellite photos on Google Maps.

[Pumpy Tudors]

This thread was much funnier on the first page. Also, some of you people are weird.

[Drake]

Killjoy

[sterlingice]

This thread was much funnier on the first page. Also, some of you people are weird.

Well, I know what would liven this thread up

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y268/sterlingice/smileys/ttiuwpp.gif

SI

[Subby]

This seems like a good time to go.

[sterlingice]

Better we have silly nonsense than crazy flame wars. "I know, we'll overwhelm their forces with absurdity!"

SI

[Glengoyne]

I have a problem with sodomy, but the difference between myself and many muslims, is that I am not going to start riots and begin killing people when things don't go my way.

I am distinctly pro sodomy. I'd go so far as to say that anyone who isn't, probably isn't familiar with what the term actually means.

[wade moore]

I am distinctly pro sodomy. I'd go so far as to say that anyone who isn't, probably isn't familiar with what the term actually means.

Just to make sure I didn't have a false understanding of the meaning of the word, I went to dictionary.com. Based on reading that, I'm not sure why you say this.

Edit: I'm not against it for others at all. I just don't understand the idea that if you're not "distinctly pro sodomy" that you don't know what the term actually means.

[Drake]

Then obviously you haven't experienced the true love of a manly sodomite relationship.

[Drake]

Sorry. My evil clone kidnapped my keyboard for the previous post. Please disregard that comment.

[ISiddiqui]

Just to make sure I didn't have a false understanding of the meaning of the word, I went to dictionary.com. Based on reading that, I'm not sure why you say this.

Edit: I'm not against it for others at all. I just don't understand the idea that if you're not "distinctly pro sodomy" that you don't know what the term actually means.

Because I thought everyone liked oral sex.

[cuervo72]

Everyone male, anyway.

[wade moore]

Because I thought everyone liked oral sex.

There are 10 definitions on dictionary.com and 3 of them include this possible definition.

Either way, I think if you want to really talk about the word and what the common accepted meaning is of the word, oral sex is not it.

If you're trying to act smart and show that you know a defunct definition that isn't used anymore, more power to you. But it's quite clear that the most common dictionary definition is anal sex, and usually with someone of the same sex. In addition, that is just the definition that is clearly accepted in American culture.

Sorry. I just find it annoying when people try to act all smart like this and they are technically correct, but not practically correct.

[wade moore]

Dola: and I'm tired and suffering from some insomnia, so that's a factor too.

[ISiddiqui]

What do you mean its a 'defunct definition'? Hell, it's the first definition listed on dictionary.com! I thought most people knew that oral sex is included in 'sodomy' (and yes people were prosecuted for oral sex under sodomy statutes).

[Drake]

Xanax and Tequila are the best cures for insomnia known to man.

[Drake]

Now that we've moved on to debating the specifics of sodomy, I think this thread has taken a turn for the better. Or does that get us closer to Nazis again?

[ISiddiqui]

I hear Hitler liked to be anally sodomized.

Ooops..

[wade moore]

What do you mean its a 'defunct definition'? Hell, it's the first definition listed on dictionary.com! I thought most people knew that oral sex is included in 'sodomy' (and yes people were prosecuted for oral sex under sodomy statutes).

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I had never heard of Oral Sex being included until I looked it up on Dictionary.com tonight.

FWIW, not that it's an absolute source, wiki even says that it is "most commonly used to refer to anal sex".

*shrug*... I dont' really actually care all that much. I just feel like if you ask 10 people in the US, 7 or 8 of them will say it means anal sex.

[cuervo72]

Most commonly, but not exclusively. I think some regard anything outside of vaginal sex (and even then in some places there might be rules on the books where it's anything outside of the missionary position) as technically being sodomy.

[wade moore]

Most commonly, but not exclusively. I think some regard anything outside of vaginal sex (and even then in some places there might be rules on the books where it's anything outside of the missionary position) as technically being sodomy.

It does look that is technically correct.

[Ryche]

The definition of sodomy and its penalty from Minnesota statutes:

609.293 SODOMY.
Subdivision 1. Definition. "Sodomy" means carnally knowing any person by the anus or
by or with the mouth.
Subd. 2.[Repealed, 1977 c 130 s 10]
Subd. 3.[Repealed, 1977 c 130 s 10]
Subd. 4.[Repealed, 1977 c 130 s 10]
Subd. 5. Consensual acts. Whoever, in cases not coming within the provisions of sections
609.342 or 609.344, voluntarily engages in or submits to an act of sodomy with another may
be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more
than $3,000, or both.

[Raiders Army]

In retrospect, did Keith Ellison's constituents know he was Muslim? I'm sure that had to have come up in the elections. If they did and elected him, then it shouldn't surprise any of them when he wants to take his oath on the Koran...and in essence, they've condoned this and supported this.

If the people who voted for him didn't know he was Muslim, then I could see an argument against him taking an oath on the Koran. There are certain expectations that people have when they vote for someone and I believe this is one of them. If he didn't disclose that he was Muslim to the people, then they may have an argument there.

That being said, I highly doubt that he was voted into office without the people's knowledge that he was Muslim.

[Pumpy Tudors]

What if someone wants to take the oath while performing sodomy? What about that?

[cartman]

What if someone wants to take the oath while performing sodomy? What about that?

It depends. It's not polite to talk with your mouth full.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I just feel like if you ask 10 people in the US, 7 or 8 of them will say it means anal sex.

You might be right, but that would run contrary to the response you'd get in Georgia I bet.

We heard the word a lot during the Bowers v. Hardwick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick) case and although the law in question covered both, pretty much every conversation I heard, every joke that was told, any reference to it at all clearly had oral as the primary definition.

[Ryche]

In retrospect, did Keith Ellison's constituents know he was Muslim? I'm sure that had to have come up in the elections. If they did and elected him, then it shouldn't surprise any of them when he wants to take his oath on the Koran...and in essence, they've condoned this and supported this.

If the people who voted for him didn't know he was Muslim, then I could see an argument against him taking an oath on the Koran. There are certain expectations that people have when they vote for someone and I believe this is one of them. If he didn't disclose that he was Muslim to the people, then they may have an argument there.

That being said, I highly doubt that he was voted into office without the people's knowledge that he was Muslim.

They definitely knew, it was a fairly large point of interest in the campaign. There were some questions raised about his relationship with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam when he was in college, but it seemed pretty minor. But once he won the Democratic primary for the seat, there was little doubt he would be elected.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I had never heard of Oral Sex being included until I looked it up on Dictionary.com tonight.

FWIW, not that it's an absolute source, wiki even says that it is "most commonly used to refer to anal sex".

*shrug*... I dont' really actually care all that much. I just feel like if you ask 10 people in the US, 7 or 8 of them will say it means anal sex.

Same here.

[JPhillips]

Glen:

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:ElS8IxCcuZIEeM:http://www.wvpottery.com/images/pitcher-red.jpg

or

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Z5r88l5kI1blWM:http://www.brokenmasterpieces.com/Catcher.JPG

[JPhillips]

Back to the substance here. This from Think Progress.

But Prager’s column is based on one other glaring error: the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book. The Office of the House Clerk confirmed to ThinkProgress that the swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution. The Clerk spokesperson said neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, had ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony. (Occasionally, Members pose for symbolic photo-ops with their hand on a Bible.)

So who made the mistake here, Ellison or Prager?

[Pumpy Tudors]

If sodomy isn't substance, I don't know what is.

[st.cronin]

I was going to avoid this thread until I noticed that Pumpy had posted here. Now I'm going to have to read the whole thing.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I was going to avoid this thread until I noticed that Pumpy had posted here. Now I'm going to have to read the whole thing.
I had no idea that I held so much power.

[SFL Cat]

While I do think the PC police are doing their best to push all expression of Christianity into some unseen dark little corner of society, I have no problem with someone placing their hand on whatever text that is sacred to their religion when taking the oath.

That said, people living in this country (especially Muslims), do need to understand that the religious heritage of this nation is Christianity and stop whining about being offended when they see it expressed. Do you think leadership in a Muslim country gives a rat's a$$ about what Christians and/or Jews might find offensive in their cultures?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Do you think leadership in a Muslim country gives a rat's a$$ about what Christians and/or Jews might find offensive in their cultures?

I like the idea of modelling the US after what Muslim leaders would do with their countries. We should really run with that. Thanks SFL!

[Pumpy Tudors]

Is it too early to pull out the "people are really showing their true colors in this thread" line?

[Passacaglia]

Is it too early to pull out the "people are really showing their true colors in this thread" line?

They are? I didn't know that! Mine are A Day At The Office at work, but Sideline Green at home.

[st.cronin]

Ok, I was just kidding. I'm not really going to read the thread.

[sterlingice]

Is it too early to pull out the "people are really showing their true colors in this thread" line?

Damn, I've been found out once again. Alright, I admit it, I'm just another one of those mindless forum-posting bots who gets stuff off of google images to try and get a cheap laugh :(

SI

[SFL Cat]

I like the idea of modelling the US after what Muslim leaders would do with their countries. We should really run with that. Thanks SFL!

Please carefully review what I wrote...in no way did I say we should model our society after what Muslim states do. If we did, you anti-religious folks might actually have justification for a beef. I am saying that free religious expression is guaranteed under our Constitution and that the government has no right to censure any such expression (barring animal or human sacrifice of course).

It gets a little irksome when the PC police go ballistic whenever they feel that Christian expression is just a little too public...i.e., oh my, we can't have that 200 year old cross in the public square anymore, some athiest/jew/muslim/hindu/troutfetishist/etc.etc.etc. might be offended...or After fifty years, we can't display that manger scene in the foyer of the city hall any more...someone might be offended.

[WVUFAN]

Please carefully review what I wrote...in no way did I say we should model our society after what Muslim states do. If we did, you anti-religious folks might actually have justification for a beef. I am saying that free religious expression is guaranteed under our Constitution and that the government has no right to censure any such expression (barring animal or human sacrifice of course).

It gets a little irksome when the PC police go ballistic whenever they feel that Christian expression is just a little too public...i.e., oh my, we can't have that 200 year old cross in the public square anymore, some athiest/jew/muslim/hindu/troutfetishist/etc.etc.etc. might be offended...or After fifty years, we can't display that manger scene in the foyer of the city hall any more...someone might be offended.

I agree. This country seems to have Freedom of Expression and religion ... unless you're Christian. Heaven forbid the MAJORITY in the country get to decide things once in awhile.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I agree. This country seems to have Freedom of Expression and religion ... unless you're Christian. Heaven forbid the MAJORITY in the country get to decide things once in awhile.

What country do you live in?

[Ryche]

I agree. This country seems to have Freedom of Expression and religion ... unless you're Christian. Heaven forbid the MAJORITY in the country get to decide things once in awhile.

Didn't this whole thread start because someone dared to be sworn in using something other than a Christian bible?

[Buccaneer]

When is a tradition not a tradition?

(hey bro)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

we can't display that manger scene in the foyer of the city hall any more...someone might be offended.

Actually, that has nothing to do with offending anyone. It's about abiding by the Constitution.

[Cork]

I came across this site while googling "Islam".

http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

Makes for some interesting reading concerning Islam.

-Cork

[Glengoyne]

Glen:

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:ElS8IxCcuZIEeM:http://www.wvpottery.com/images/pitcher-red.jpg

or

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Z5r88l5kI1blWM:http://www.brokenmasterpieces.com/Catcher.JPG

I just popped back here to see that I had stirred up about 25 posts and improved the thread.

It took me a good five or ten seconds to put this together resulting in a very nice Laugh out loud moment.

Thank You.

[Joe Canadian]

I have a problem with sodomy, but the difference between myself and many muslims, is that I am not going to start riots and begin killing people when things don't go my way.

No, (some) Christians just make laws banning it and throw people in jail over it.

[Glengoyne]

Actually, that has nothing to do with offending anyone. It's about abiding by the Constitution.


I could debate that, and readilly would. Too bad I already threadjacked this thread once.

So

What are your thoughts on head?


------
Speaking of oral sex.

One of my favorite moments on Letterman had Dave pondering this new something or other that claimed to have the ability to reduce the size of a person's head. Dave couldn't figure out why anyone would be interested, and a comment was heard off stage. Letterman turns away from the camera cracking up. He then turned around to declare "Anton thinks we could all use a little head"!

[Marc Vaughan]

On a totally unrelated note some people protested in England about Jedi's not being recognised properly as a religion (in the last referendum 'Jedi' was the fourth most popular entry under religion believe it or not - us English have a strange sense of humour .... and of course a love for all things StarWars ;) ).

[PSUColonel]

Actually, that has nothing to do with offending anyone. It's about abiding by the Constitution.

No, you are wrong, all the constitution says is that the state shall not sanction any one particular religion...there is no real seperation of church and state per say. People have looked at this part of the constitution for years and misread what it says.

[ISiddiqui]

Like Thomas Jefferson, that bastard :mad:

[KWhit]

I agree. This country seems to have Freedom of Expression and religion ... unless you're Christian. Heaven forbid the MAJORITY in the country get to decide things once in awhile.

Yep. You Christians are really persecuted. I don't know how you guys make it in this country.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Yep. You Christians are really persecuted. I don't know how you guys make it in this country.

We just have to hold out hope that someday we might live long enough to see a Christian president of the US. Maybe a few Christian senators or Supreme Court justices too. Just imagine it!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

No, you are wrong, all the constitution says is that the state shall not sanction any one particular religion...there is no real seperation of church and state per say. People have looked at this part of the constitution for years and misread what it says.

Sure. Whatever you say.

[Galaxy]

It means I am more likely to adhere to the status quo, rather than be an agent for change. It doesn't mean I am against change, it just means I am more likely to be very careful about change, and watch how is progresses on a day to day level, and even be mindful of it's potential consequences/benefits.

How exactly does this impact this action? Take Mayor Michael Bloomberg, should he have to swear on a bible, when he is Jewish?

[Galaxy]

I agree. This country seems to have Freedom of Expression and religion ... unless you're Christian. Heaven forbid the MAJORITY in the country get to decide things once in awhile.

Define what Christian means?


The problem in our country, is the people who declare themselves Christians are very different in values, beliefs, ect..

[Axxon]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I had never heard of Oral Sex being included until I looked it up on Dictionary.com tonight.

FWIW, not that it's an absolute source, wiki even says that it is "most commonly used to refer to anal sex".

*shrug*... I dont' really actually care all that much. I just feel like if you ask 10 people in the US, 7 or 8 of them will say it means anal sex.

I wouldn't use it that way but if you asked me if oral sex was considered sodomy I'd have known that it is. I've heard this definition used enough over the years having lived in bible belt states. I have no idea how common this knowledge is in other parts of the country though.

I'm just adding another data point here.

[WVUFAN]

Yep. You Christians are really persecuted. I don't know how you guys make it in this country.

Say that the next time you walk into a store, and the greeter says "Happy Holidays", not because that's what they SHOULD or WOULD say, but rather what the HAVE to say for fear of some ridiculous minority group threatening to boycott and spread it all over the media if they DARE say "Merry Christmas". There's MILLIONS of Christians in this country, celebrating their Holy Day, and the greeter can't even say the doggone name of the holiday.

Or tell those children in a school who would LOVE to be able to have a moment of prayer or even a moment of silence, but the 1 child from an athiest family has the ability to just be, y'know, SILENT during a moment of silence gets to destroy everyone else's ability to have a prayer. A school might have THOUSANDS of children, but 1 single child gets to dictate school policy.

Or how a church in a school (private or not), CHURCH, mind you, are being asked to remove a cross from sight because some group is offended.

How about the fight to have the words "Under God" removed by the dollar bill, or the Pledge of Allegance?

The day is coming when some crackpot minority group, religion or even athiests, sue the government to have Christmas removed as a National Holiday on the grounds that it's against separation of Church and State. Because that's OBVIOUSLY what the Founding Fathers intended by that amendment -- the COMPLETE removal of any mention of God in the Government. :rolleyes:

But we bend over backwards for other religions, like the states that allow picture-free licences for Muslim women who want to wear veils.

Yeah, Christians are treated WONDERFULLY in this country. Riiight. Hell, I'm not what you would call a regular church goer, and I can see it.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Say that the next time you walk into a store, and the greeter says "Happy Holidays", not because that's what they SHOULD or WOULD say, but rather what the HAVE to say for fear of some ridiculous minority group threatening to boycott and spread it all over the media if they DARE say "Merry Christmas". There's MILLIONS of Christians in this country, celebrating their Holy Day, and the greeter can't even say the doggone name of the holiday.

Is this really that big of a deal? I worked at Barnes & Noble for two holiday seasons and I was never told not to say Merry Christmas. It was up to us to say what we wanted. Would you be comfortable if every store you went to wished you a Happy Hanukkah? Is it really so painful to you that people don't wish you a Merry Christmas?

Or tell those children in a school who would LOVE to be able to have a moment of prayer or even a moment of silence, but the 1 child from an athiest family has the ability to just be, y'know, SILENT during a moment of silence gets to destroy everyone else's ability to have a prayer. A school might have THOUSANDS of children, but 1 single child gets to dictate school policy.

No one is preventing students from praying or having a moment of silence on an individual basis. If a kid wants to pray, have at it. It's the mandated prayer/silence that is forbidden.

Or how a church in a school (private or not), CHURCH, mind you, are being asked to remove a cross from sight because some group is offended.

For what it's worth, there are some Christians that are offended by the cross being used as the symbol for Christianity.

How about the fight to have the words "Under God" removed by the dollar bill, or the Pledge of Allegance?

Why does anyone have a problem with this? Would it really hurt your faith if those words were removed?

Yeah, Christians are treated WONDERFULLY in this country. Riiight. Hell, I'm not what you would call a regular church goer, and I can see it.

If these are the only problems you have, then yes, Christians are treated wonderfully in this country. Compare that to Muslims who are automatically considered terrorists, or atheists who have no morals, or Mormons who are just plain old freaks, or Jews who still have to live with anti-Semitism, etc. I'll never understand the persecution complex some Christians have. What more do you want? Do you want this to be a Christian theocracy? If so, which branch of Christianity?

[John Galt]

Say that the next time you walk into a store, and the greeter says "Happy Holidays", not because that's what they SHOULD or WOULD say, but rather what the HAVE to say for fear of some ridiculous minority group threatening to boycott and spread it all over the media if they DARE say "Merry Christmas". There's MILLIONS of Christians in this country, celebrating their Holy Day, and the greeter can't even say the doggone name of the holiday.

Or tell those children in a school who would LOVE to be able to have a moment of prayer or even a moment of silence, but the 1 child from an athiest family has the ability to just be, y'know, SILENT during a moment of silence gets to destroy everyone else's ability to have a prayer. A school might have THOUSANDS of children, but 1 single child gets to dictate school policy.

Or how a church in a school (private or not), CHURCH, mind you, are being asked to remove a cross from sight because some group is offended.

How about the fight to have the words "Under God" removed by the dollar bill, or the Pledge of Allegance?

The day is coming when some crackpot minority group, religion or even athiests, sue the government to have Christmas removed as a National Holiday on the grounds that it's against separation of Church and State. Because that's OBVIOUSLY what the Founding Fathers intended by that amendment -- the COMPLETE removal of any mention of God in the Government. :rolleyes:

But we bend over backwards for other religions, like the states that allow picture-free licences for Muslim women who want to wear veils.

Yeah, Christians are treated WONDERFULLY in this country. Riiight. Hell, I'm not what you would call a regular church goer, and I can see it.

You aren't paranoid if they really are out to get you.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Going back to the original topic:

But Prager’s column is based on one other glaring error: the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book. The Office of the House Clerk confirmed to ThinkProgress that the swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution. The Clerk spokesperson said neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, had ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony. (Occassionally, Members pose for symbolic photo-ops with their hand on a Bible.)

hxxp://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/30/koran-bible-prager-ellison/

[cartman]

I would only expect to be told "Merry Christmas" on the 25th. You don't tell someone "Happy New Year" on Dec. 27th. Since the term "The Holidays" is generally used to describe the period starting with Thanksgiving and ending with New Year's Day, it is entirely appropriate to wish somone "Happy Holidays" during this timeframe.

[PSUColonel]

Going back to the original topic:



hxxp://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/30/koran-bible-prager-ellison/



OK, here's my follow up: While it appears Prager certaintly made his mistake in not realizing members of the house don't swear on the bible in the first place, the bigger questions become, did Ellison himself first make the claim that he would not take his oath using the Bible?, or did Prager just simply invent the entire story in order to stir up the pot? I have a feeling Ellison probably made some sort of comment to the effect he would not use a Bible taking the oath, and if that is indeed the case, Mr. Ellison is a far bigger boob of an elected official than I can recall in recent times.

[Easy Mac]

persecution has really mellowed since Jesus' day.

[John Galt]

OK, here's my follow up: While it appears Prager certaintly made his mistake in not realizing members of the house don't swear on the bible in the first place, the bigger questions become, did Ellison himself first make the claim that he would not take his oath using the Bible?, or did Prager just simply invent the entire story in order to stir up the pot? I have a feeling Ellison probably made some sort of comment to the effect he would not use a Bible taking the oath, and if that is indeed the case, Mr. Ellison is a far bigger boob of an elected official than I can recall in recent times.

Astounding logic!

Identify key question (who first introduced the issue of swearing on the bible, Ellison or Prager).
Decide that you know answer of that question without any actual evidence ("Ellison probably made some sort of comment ...").
Conclude that someone is a "boob" based upon your assumed answer to key question. Of course this last part is particularly clever because you add the "if that is indeed the case" conditional statement. Of course that conditional statement is a useless caveat because you are "probably" know the answer (of course without any actual evidence).

I would pay money (and I mean real money) to watch you, WVUFAN, and Bubba debate the persecuted status of white, male, heterosexual Christians in America. The UIC would be off the charts.

[PSUColonel]

Astounding logic!

Identify key question (who first introduced the issue of swearing on the bible, Ellison or Prager).
Decide that you know answer of that question without any actual evidence ("Ellison probably made some sort of comment ...").
Conclude that someone is a "boob" based upon your assumed answer to key question. Of course this last part is particularly clever because you add the "if that is indeed the case" conditional statement. Of course that conditional statement is a useless caveat because you are "probably" know the answer (of course without any actual evidence).

I would pay money (and I mean real money) to watch you, WVUFAN, and Bubba debate the persecuted status of white, male, heterosexual Christians in America. The UIC would be off the charts.


We'll just have to stay tuned to find out if I am in fact correct then won't we?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

OK, here's my follow up: While it appears Prager certaintly made his mistake in not realizing members of the house don't swear on the bible in the first place, the bigger questions become, did Ellison himself first make the claim that he would not take his oath using the Bible?, or did Prager just simply invent the entire story in order to stir up the pot? I have a feeling Ellison probably made some sort of comment to the effect he would not use a Bible taking the oath, and if that is indeed the case, Mr. Ellison is a far bigger boob of an elected official than I can recall in recent times.

I haven't been able to find anything with Ellison actually saying he wants to use the Koran to be sworn in, I've just found articles that mention him saying so. Did he hold a press conference and announce this (which I doubt since I can't find anything that says this), or was he asked by a reporter? Either way, why does it matter? How does this make him a boob? Especially since all of us (and pretty much everyone in the media) thought that you do swear in using the bible or some other religious text.

[John Galt]

We'll just have to stay tuned to find out if I am in fact correct then won't we?

The point isn't whether or not you are correct. The point is that you make conclusions without evidence because you are either incapable or unwilling to have any sense of objectivity in exercising judgment.

[Raiders Army]

Not that it's pertinent to this thread, but the song "Candyman" was going through my head the other day and I was looking at Sammy Davis Jr.'s bio on wikipedia. I hate history, so as far as historical events happening I'm pretty clueless. I did notice, however, that my wife and I couldn't be married in 31 states until 1967 when the Supreme Court abolished laws forbidding interracial marriage. It's hard to believe that was only a little less than 40 years ago.

[Crapshoot]

Not that it's pertinent to this thread, but the song "Candyman" was going through my head the other day and I was looking at Sammy Davis Jr.'s bio on wikipedia. I hate history, so as far as historical events happening I'm pretty clueless. I did notice, however, that my wife and I couldn't be married in 31 states until 1967 when the Supreme Court abolished laws forbidding interracial marriage. It's hard to believe that was only a little less than 40 years ago.

Hey, the Bubba's and PSU's of the world would have opposed it - after all, it wasn't "traditional."

[JonInMiddleGA]

NY Time article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/us/politics/10muslims.html?ex=1320814800&en=ae66a7dbf5647792&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) that includes this snippet from Nov. 10th.

Arab news reports highlighted the fact that Mr. Ellison would probably take the oath of office on the Koran ... Mr. Ellison said he had not really thought about the swearing-in ceremony and had tried to keep the campaign focused on issues rather than his religion.

[wade moore]

The point isn't whether or not you are correct. The point is that you make conclusions without evidence because you are either incapable or unwilling to have any sense of objectivity in exercising judgment.

And John wins the award for perfectly summarizing a 5 page thread in 2 sentences. Nice work!

[sabotai]

persecution has really mellowed since Jesus' day.

Genocides, inquisitions, witch trials, slavery....I remember a time when persecution actually meant something. Now we have people who are screaming persecution because their government is slowly getting away from using their religious symbols and phrases. An oft repeated line from a popular movie is very apt here (but I'm tired of seeing it so I won't say it).

And BTW, Christmas is not a National Holiday. It never was. (The US does not have any National Holidays)

[WVUFAN]

And BTW, Christmas is not a National Holiday. It never was. (The US does not have any National Holidays)

Oooh, my bad. FEDERAL Holidays ... holidays assigned by the government -- holidays when the federal and state governments shut down. Of which Christmas is one.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Right. Can't you be happy with that then? No, you not only want the holiday but someone to say Merry Christmas to you. Whatever.

[Galaxy]

And BTW, Christmas is not a National Holiday. It never was. (The US does not have any National Holidays)

What's the difference between a national holiday and a federal holiday?

[sabotai]

What's the difference between a national holiday and a federal holiday?

A federal holiday is a day when most non-essential federal employees are off from work. As for state employees, it's up to each state to decide if they also want to give their employees off that day.

For a "National Holiday" (in the context used above, aka "public holiday", "legal holiday", and others), the government can essencially enforce the holiday on private businesses. IOW, they can dictate if businesses can stay open or not. The US doesn't have any holiday where they force the closing of certain/all businesses.

It's actually a very significant difference for certain conversations.

[Oilers9911]

This is where you are wrong...and so is the President, we ARE at war with Islam, no one wants to admit it though.

Sorry but you are so full of shit I just can't believe it.

[Dutch]

Sorry but you are so full of shit I just can't believe it.

I think the confusion (in part at least) is the how Islamic Fundamentalism is dominating the political realm in the Middle East. Obviously Islam is not an evil thing, just like Christianity is not an evil thing. It's those who are not faithfully involved that have little concern about manipulating it for their advantage. Religion doesn't start wars, politics does. Or more clearly, people do.

[CraigSca]

Hey, I came late to the game, but I just wanted to say, as a born-again Christian, I have no problem with this guy putting his hand on the Koran during his ceremony (although I see there's some discussion on whether any religious book has been used during these events in the past).

[PSUColonel]

Some interesting excerpts from the article:


"Mr. Siblani joked that even if all 28 new Democrats were Muslims, it is unlikely they would be able to sway the way Congress invariably votes in support of Israel. But many Muslims believe that just having a Muslim perspective around can make some difference."

"Mr. Ellison’s victory was widely noted in the larger Muslim world. The day after the election, it was the third headline mentioned on Al Jazeera, the most popular satellite news channel in the Middle East, right after a report that 18 Palestinian civilians had been killed by Israeli artillery in the Gaza Strip and a report on the overall Democratic sweep in the elections."


"The news garnered a rich variety of comments from Arab readers on the Web site of Al Arabiya, a satellite news channel based in Dubai. “God willing in the next election, half of Congress will be from the rational Muslims,” wrote one reader, while another said, “May God make this the beginning of victory for Muslims on the very ground of the despots.”

"Arab news reports highlighted the fact that Mr. Ellison would probably take the oath of office on the Koran, something which also upset Muslim-bashers in the blogosphere. Some suggested it meant he would pledge allegiance to Islamic law rather than to upholding the Constitution."

[wade moore]

Your point?

[PSUColonel]

I would like the chance to clear the air here. I think many people here beleive somehow I don't support the right to take the oath on a religious book of choice, when in fact I do. I think my biggest problem is my utter disgust for American society. American society has become so politically correct, and so self congratulatory and hyper-tolorant that it is taking it's eye off the ball so to speak. My real problem is not with what book this man is or is not taking his oath on, but rather the fact he was elected in the first place. Knowing full well the war we are waged in, it disappoints me to no end that the American public would install a muslim into office. Now does this inherently make Ellison a bad person? of course not. The problem is the fact that muslims are globally attempting to inlifltrate western society and turn it into a culture more to their liking, which in many cases means they often want to see the law of islam applied. For those of you who are so tolerent of islam, I will tell you this: islam is a vile and disgusting doctorine. It is rather many of the people who follow it who are peaceful. Those who are islamic conservatives will always be a problem for the west if we as a society, and as voters allow this type of thing to continue. Many of you who simply thin I am being a bigot should probably watch a very well done documentary titled: Islam: What the West Needs to Know. It will fully explain the pitfalls the our society face today, and into the future. So in closing, I just want it to be clear that it is not the religious freedoms of individuals, nor the individuals themselves that necisarilly that I have trouble with, but rather the collective wisdom of a society that is failing to see the forest from the trees when it comes to this "jihad" we are engaged in. Good Day.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I think my biggest problem is my utter disgust for American society. American society has become so politically correct, and so self congratulatory and hyper-tolorant that it is taking it's eye off the ball so to speak.

Yes, tolerance is a horrible thing. We should stone everyone who isn't like me. Unfortunately, that means you. Sorry.

The problem is the fact that muslims are globally attempting to inlifltrate western society and turn it into a culture more to their liking, which in many cases means they often want to see the law of islam applied.

Do you have any problem with us imposing our culture on them?

For those of you who are so tolerent of islam, I will tell you this: islam is a vile and disgusting doctorine.

Have you actually studied Islam to be able to make this claim? One can read the bible and find it rather vile and disgusting, too.

[ISiddiqui]

My real problem is not with what book this man is or is not taking his oath on, but rather the fact he was elected in the first place. Knowing full well the war we are waged in, it disappoints me to no end that the American public would install a muslim into office.

Cause, of course, simply becaue he is a Muslim, means he's Al Queda... riiiight.

[JPhillips]

PSU: Could you post these rants at the beginning of threads? That would save everyone a lot of time.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Wow. It took awhile but the true colors finally came out. I don't think your a bigot. I know you are. To use a very vague quote that I like a lot: There is nothing more hypocritical to see those who claim to love America but who hate Americans. That's exactly you PSU. I won't even bother to discuss the rest of your "rant" other than to say you are not only a bigot but also ignorant. Try watching more than one documentary before you draw conclusions about hundreds of million of people across the globe. The real sad thing is you probably know absolutely nothing about Ellison other than he is muslim. The voters in his district do know a lot about him indeed, and were willing to look past initial biases and fear that you not only have but try to instill in others. See 'ya.

[Ryche]

He wasn't elected because he's a Muslim, he was elected because he's a Democrat. The primary is the election in that district and he won the primary because his political views fit the district well. His religion was very secondary. And he was endorsed by most of the Jewish organizations in the district for what it's worth.

[CraigSca]

Really?! Do you have a reference for the Jewish groups that supported him? Not questioning you, but I'd love to see them.

It'd be really interesting to get information like the number of muslims who voted for Lieberman in the last election.

[heybrad]

I would like the chance to clear the air here.
I think we all got the point before you did.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Really?! Do you have a reference for the Jewish groups that supported him? Not questioning you, but I'd love to see them.


Best I can find so far are numerous references to the largest Jewish newspaper in Minneapolis (American Jewish World) endorsing him.

Here's his list of endorsements, maybe I'm overlooking somebody/some group.
http://www.keithellison.org/endorsements.htm

[Cork]

Sorry but you are so full of shit I just can't believe it.

What makes you so sure PSU is wrong?

-Cork

[-Mojo Jojo-]

"Mr. Siblani joked that even if all 28 new Democrats were Muslims, it is unlikely they would be able to sway the way Congress invariably votes in support of Israel. But many Muslims believe that just having a Muslim perspective around can make some difference."

"Mr. Ellison’s victory was widely noted in the larger Muslim world. The day after the election, it was the third headline mentioned on Al Jazeera, the most popular satellite news channel in the Middle East, right after a report that 18 Palestinian civilians had been killed by Israeli artillery in the Gaza Strip and a report on the overall Democratic sweep in the elections."


That is actually fantastic news. I'm glad Ellison's election has been well-publicized. The American dream comes true for a Muslim politician. Not only does it show that our political process is open to all, but Ellison won in a majority white and non-muslim district, proving that Americans are not all bigotted anti-muslim arseholes (although clearly some of us are). It's the sort of news that challenges prejudices and preconceptions. This is the sort publicity we need to have in order to create vectors for the spread of American culture and American democracy into the places that need it most. Frankly, we could use more American Muslims in federal government for that purpose...

[PSUColonel]

Wow. It took awhile but the true colors finally came out. I don't think your a bigot. I know you are. To use a very vague quote that I like a lot: There is nothing more hypocritical to see those who claim to love America but who hate Americans. That's exactly you PSU. I won't even bother to discuss the rest of your "rant" other than to say you are not only a bigot but also ignorant. Try watching more than one documentary before you draw conclusions about hundreds of million of people across the globe. The real sad thing is you probably know absolutely nothing about Ellison other than he is muslim. The voters in his district do know a lot about him indeed, and were willing to look past initial biases and fear that you not only have but try to instill in others. See 'ya.



I do not hate America at all. I love this nation. By biggest problem is that I see it changing in a way that I don't think is good. I have watched numerous documentaries, and read many of books. The reason I chose to illustrate this particular one, is because I think it does the best job of explaining the subject. Again, my problem is not with Ellison himself, it is with this "new" American culture, that hardly resembles the cuture I've always known in this nation. I would argue it are these people who don't always love America, as they continue to go the way of Europeans and other nations day after day. America has traditionally always been a much more conservative nation than our European counterparts, and I am afraid that is changing. I am also afraid those changes could result in future trouble for America. As I have admitted, I am a conservative and I feel conservatism is the best policy..that is just my opinion. Let me guess...you are a liberal, no?

[PSUColonel]

That is actually fantastic news. I'm glad Ellison's election has been well-publicized. The American dream comes true for a Muslim politician. Not only does it show that our political process is open to all, but Ellison won in a majority white and non-muslim district, proving that Americans are not all bigotted anti-muslim arseholes (although clearly some of us are). It's the sort of news that challenges prejudices and preconceptions. This is the sort publicity we need to have in order to create vectors for the spread of American culture and American democracy into the places that need it most. Frankly, we could use more American Muslims in federal government for that purpose...



That wasn't why I posted these particular snippets..did you read them? It's showing what I have been saying all a long, muslims are anxious to put their footprints into western society in hopes of changing it to their liking...which much of the time means law of islam. Just the comment about half of congress being muslim proves my point about how they want to hijack western society, and slowly turn it into their own. I for one am not so anxious as the rest of you to "give" away the America I have known and grew up in.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Don't you guys see the slippery slope here? Next thing you know, a president-elect will want hip-hop music played at the inauguration.

[wade moore]

Don't you guys see the slippery slope here? Next thing you know, a president-elect will want hip-hop music played at the inauguration.

Think of the children!

[NoMyths]

I would like the chance to clear the air here. I think many people here beleive somehow I don't support the right to take the oath on a religious book of choice, when in fact I do. I think my biggest problem is my utter disgust for American society. American society has become so politically correct, and so self congratulatory and hyper-tolorant that it is taking it's eye off the ball so to speak. My real problem is not with what book this man is or is not taking his oath on, but rather the fact he was elected in the first place. Knowing full well the war we are waged in, it disappoints me to no end that the American public would install a muslim into office. Now does this inherently make Ellison a bad person? of course not. The problem is the fact that muslims are globally attempting to inlifltrate western society and turn it into a culture more to their liking, which in many cases means they often want to see the law of islam applied. For those of you who are so tolerent of islam, I will tell you this: islam is a vile and disgusting doctorine. It is rather many of the people who follow it who are peaceful. Those who are islamic conservatives will always be a problem for the west if we as a society, and as voters allow this type of thing to continue. Many of you who simply thin I am being a bigot should probably watch a very well done documentary titled: Islam: What the West Needs to Know. It will fully explain the pitfalls the our society face today, and into the future. So in closing, I just want it to be clear that it is not the religious freedoms of individuals, nor the individuals themselves that necisarilly that I have trouble with, but rather the collective wisdom of a society that is failing to see the forest from the trees when it comes to this "jihad" we are engaged in. Good Day.
Based on your posts, this is what a reasonable person can conclude about your philosophical position:

A) You don't love America. You hate it and most of your fellow countrymen.

B) What you love is your idea of what you want America to be, which bears no relation to the actual America. It does, however, bear suspicious resemblence to many totalitarian regimes that denied freedoms of every stripe, particularly religous ones, to their citizens.

C) The reason for both of the above has everything to do, I suspect, with poor education and social indoctrination, both of which are surmountable problems.

D) The America that enslaved Africans, interned the Japanese and Americans of Japanese ancestry, denied political and social freedom to women, and committed genocide against native tribes no longer exists (though the repercussions are still being felt). While you clearly would prefer to live in that kind of America, you should take note of why most of the rest of us look at your posts with revulsion: those things were wrong, and yet everytime we read posts like the above, it makes it absolutely clear how a supposedly well-educated American can prefer those kinds of wrongs.

E) Yes, change is hard and scary, and can cause social upheavals. America seems to have gotten most of its social upheavals right, though, and that clearly seems related to our system of government.

F) Democracy is a foreign concept to you, and studying it -- particularly the Constitution and good scholarship about it -- would, while making you undoubtedly furious, also educate you as to the country you are living in, and not the one in your imagination.

G) Don't trust one documentary alone about anything. If the subject interests you, research it more thoroughly -- especially information that runs counter to your position. You cannot uncover the truth about this planet's complicated socio-political history in two hours of tape.

H) Every religious movement has misguided followers. If we start stacking the corpses that have been murdered in the name of religion, they would obscure the heavens.

I) Every religious movement has miraculously good followers. If we start stacking the good deeds that have been done in the name of religion, they might reach heaven.

J) Want to be better. Work at it. Don't poison your life and the lives of all who trust and believe in you with hate.

[st.cronin]

Don't you guys see the slippery slope here? Next thing you know, a president-elect will want hip-hop music played at the inauguration.

VOTE TANYA

[JonInMiddleGA]

this is what a brainwashed person would conclude to form opposition to his mostly accurate conclusions

Fixed it for you.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

That wasn't why I posted these particular snippets..did you read them?

Yes, I know exactly your point was. It was just so absurdly retarded I thought it would be better to ignore it. So let me get this right, you believe that a bunch of jihadists are going to immigrate to the US, be elected to Congress by America's largely white Christian electorate, and then, what, hold another constitutional convention and replace the constitution with Sharia law. Boy, I lose sleep over that scenario all the time. Scary, scary stuff, thanks for the warning. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Just the comment about half of congress being muslim proves my point about how they want to hijack western society, and slowly turn it into their own. I for one am not so anxious as the rest of you to "give" away the America I have known and grew up in.

Doesn't it make sense that they would want more Muslims in Congress? After all, they view us as a threat to their culture and their religion, so why wouldn't they want more of a sympathetic voice to their concerns in our government? Kind of like how we want more "westernized" forms of government in their countries.

I'm curious as to what America you grew up in. Was it the America that considered African-Americans as second-class citizens? Or the America that discriminated against someone based on their sexual preference? Or maybe the America that holds a person's religion (or lack thereof) against them?

[PSUColonel]

Doesn't it make sense that they would want more Muslims in Congress? After all, they view us as a threat to their culture and their religion, so why wouldn't they want more of a sympathetic voice to their concerns in our government? Kind of like how we want more "westernized" forms of government in their countries.


Well, I consider them a threat to our borders, language, and culture. The worst part of it is, that there are so many so-called Americans like yourself just lining up to let them. I am not saying there shouldn't be freedom, religious or otherwise, but I don't understand why you and the rest of the liberals are going out of your way to make SURE it happens.

[NoMyths]

The Michael Savage "borders, language, and culture" argument is one of the more ridiculous ones I've heard. America's borders, language, and culture have always been fluid. Always. It's good that they are -- societies that don't adapt die out.

Or are you telling me that you live in New England, speak and dress in 18th-century ways, and behave as culturally appropriate for that time? Alternately, I will accept you living in the South, speaking and dressing in 18th century ways, etc. I don't want to hear any excuses for why you aren't, either, since if you aren't you're an enemy of America's borders, language, and culture.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I am not saying there should be freedom, religious or otherwise.

HaHa. Classic freudian slip. I don't think you meant to say that, but you very accurately stated what you feel there.

Anyways, you're posts are becoming more idiotic. You start out saying you're not something and then spend several sentences showing that is exactly what you are.

[Klinglerware]

America's borders, language, and culture have always been fluid. Always. It's good that they are -- societies that don't adapt die out.



And of course, there are societies within the US that chose to leave themselves differentiated from mainstream American culture. The Amish are an example of this. In fact, a variation of German is still spoken a first language for many Amish. In spite of the differences, they appear to get along just fine within our society...

[NoMyths]

And of course, there are societies within the US that chose to leave themselves differentiated from mainstream American culture. The Amish are an example of this. In fact, a variation of German is still spoken a first language for many Amish. In spite of the differences, they appear to get along just fine within our society...
Exactly. And it's a mark in our favor that cultures like those are allowed to coexist peacefully and still be entitled to the rights of citizenship, which are denied in similar cases by other countries.

Now, they still will probably be consumed eventually by the larger culture, but in the short term, things are jim-dandy.

[cuervo72]

I think the root of the conflict is one of conformity. I think the general thought of many Americans is that if immigrants come here, after a while they will conform to the general culture - blend in, the whole melting pot idea - while adding another unique ingredient to the pot. The concern is that this level of conformity isn't going to happen. Not all Muslims are going to try to blend in, in fact, they may actively seek to do the opposite (at least some evidence of this happening in Europe; one article for example, though there are others: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05192/536250.stm ).

So the more conservative of us (and to some extent I'm included here) figure "hmm...I kinda like the things the way they are, I really don't want to have to deal with much of anything changing". Sure, it's not very open-minded. I don't think anyone should be particularly demonized for having that view though. If you're happy, do you usually want to upset the apple-cart?