I would agree with the statement that it is either okay for people to express their religious beliefs at work or it isn't. Our Constitution is VERY CLEAR about the right to religious freedom and NO WHERE in the Constitution does it qualify the freedom of religion to Christian faiths. If it is not okay for a Muslim to refuse someone to refuse a passenger who offends their religious sensibilities, then it is not okay for a pharmacist to refuse to provide a legal pharmaceutical for religious reasons. For independently owned operations (e.g. owner operated non-chain) I could see this as a reasonable policy. The question is where do you draw the line? To what extent to we allow one to exercise thier beliefs to refuse to serve someone or provide a legal service associated with their business? Do we allow a business to refuse service to specific religious, ethnic or racial groups? Again on the surface this seems very reasonable, but where do you draw the line? --- On the original topic of this thread, from what I heard on NPR today and what I am reading in online news, the Congressman in question is still planning on holding a Quran in his private "swearing in" that takes place after the Congress as a whole is sworn in as a group (and without any books). Some notes about Keith Ellison, the Muslim representative in question and precedents: 1) He is an African American who can trace his American roots to 1742. (from: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/21/news/cong.php) 2) He converted to Islam in college. (from: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/u...&en=2c8c8b1dbbf94e32&ei=5094&partner=homepage 3) Virginia's senior senator, Republican John Warner, said in a statement Thursday that he respects the right of members of Congress to freely "exercise the religion of their choice, including those of the Islamic faith utilizing the Quran." (from: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/21/america/NA_GEN_US_Lawmaker_Quran.php) 4) Osman Siddique, a Virginia businessman born in Bangladesh, reportedly used the Koran in 1999 to take the oath as U.S. ambassador to Fiji and three other Pacific nations. The News-India Times reported that Siddique, the first Muslim to serve as a U.S. ambassador abroad, took the oath on both the Bible and the Koran. The Koran was on top, the newspaper said. (from: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Beliefs/story?id=2743341&page=1) 5) Two comments by Representative Rahm Emanuel, who is Jewish: "If (Goode) meets with Keith, he'll see what I saw: a good American with good values of a different faith who's trying to do right by the people he represents." "I think one of the great things of this country was that you can have Catholics, Jews, Protestants and now a Muslim join the United States Congress."(from: http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/state/16293157.htm) 6) Part of comments by Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism: On behalf of the Union for Reform Judaism, whose more than 900 congregations across North America encompass 1.5 million Reform Jews, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) whose membership includes over 1800 Reform rabbis, I write to you today to express deep disappointment and concern about your response to a constituent letter regarding Representative-elect Keith Ellison’s plan to take his oath of office on the Koran. Your disparaging remarks about Muslims in general and as elected officials combined with your implication that the Koran is an inappropriate sacred text for Muslim Americans to use in a symbolic swearing in ceremony convey a religious test for office. These remarks are insensitive at best and signal a fundamental lack of understanding of our nation’s status as a beacon of religious liberty and the Constitution’s ban on such religious tests.(from: http://rac.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=2022&pge_prg_id=7037) 7) During his campaign, Keith Ellison was endorsed by the Minnesota Twin Cities newspaper American Jewish World. (from: http://www.keithellison.org/news-AmericanJewishWorld.htm) Let's see: we have a well respected Republican Senator from Virginia standing up for Keith Ellison's right to hold a Quran during his private ceremony (after the official oath, which is done with no book); we have a Rabbi who is the Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism speaking on behalf Central Conference of American Rabbis writing on behalf of Keith Ellison and his right to take his oath with a Quran; we have a Jewish newspaper endorsing Keith Ellison during his election campaign; we have a member of the U.S. House of Representatives who is Jewish speaking out in support of Keith Ellison; there is historical precedent of individuals taking an oath of public office on the Quran; AND Article VI of the U.S. Constitution is explicit about there being no religious test. It certainly sounds like xenophobic individuals in this forum are making a huge deal out of nothing. Hmmm... One does not need to force others to believe in their religion because people will come to see the right path on their own (the old honey attracts more flies than vinegar analogy). I wish certain fundamentalist Christians would listen to this advice and stop trying to convert me to their denomination. Maybe our founding fathers did read the Quran before writing Article VI about there not being a religious test. In regards to all of this discussion and fear of Islam, the Virginia Interfaith Center (http://www.virginiainterfaithcenter.org/) has some great PSAs on their Rethink Bias website at http://www.rethinkbias.org/PSACampaigns.html. The second second commercial reminds me of some people here. As a point of disclosure about the Virginia Interfaith Center (because I'm certain certain individuals will try to smear them here); the Virginia Interfaith Center includes includes 21 member faith groups (Roman Catholic, Jewish, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Disciples of Christ, Quakers, Baptist, Brethren, United Church of Christ, and United Methodist), several faith-based organizations (three Jewish federations, two Islamic organizations, the Virginia Council of Churches, the Virginia Poverty Law Center, Voices for Virginia’s Children, CARITAS, and others), engaged congregations, and individuals. A complete list of their partners can be found at http://www.virginiainterfaithcenter.org/pages/about/partners.html.
Yes, how true. And these inconsistencies form the Concept of Abrogation which muslims follow quite closely and which apologists like KLB either do not understand or purposely remain silent on (rendering their motives suspect at best). If there is anything "beautiful" about the Koran it is precisely in it's contradictions and how "human" it is. Mohammed was just a man, not a messenger of God. And like so many men before and after him he just got cranky and intolerant as he grew older. He was just a man. And a bloody man at that.
Like some here, it seems that a certain Virginian U.S. Representative who goes by the name Virgil Goode, has a serious misunderstanding about certain sections of the U.S. Constitution. From the Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...ls/articles/2006/12/22/an_open_house_for_all/:What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" does congressman Virgil Goode not understand? Goode, a Virginia Republican, displayed his contempt for the US Constitution in a letter he sent to constituents this month, criticizing the first Muslim elected to Congress for planning to use a ceremonial Koran instead of a Bible to swear his oath of office in January. In the letter, Goode writes that the election of Keith Ellison , Democrat of Minnesota, represents a threat to traditional American "values and beliefs." From the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101612.html:Forget that Muslims represent a small fraction of immigrants to America. And leave aside the obvious point that Mr. Goode was evidently napping in class the day they taught the traditional American values of tolerance, diversity and religious freedom. This country's history is rife with instances of uncivil, hateful and violent behavior toward newcomers, be they Jewish, Irish, Italian or plenty of others whose ethnicities did not jibe with some pinched view of what it means to be American. Mr. Goode's dimwitted outburst of nativism is nothing new. From the West Central Tribune (MN) http://www.wctrib.com/articles/index.cfm?id=14408§ion=Opinion:Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. has displayed an intolerance and Islam phobia that is downright shameful for a member of Congress. ..... This wide-sweeping fear about Islam is not appropriate, especially for a congressman. It is similar to the fear of Japanese Americans during World War II or German Americans during either World War. It is similar to fear of Irish immigrants or Irish Americans or Italian immigrants or Italian Americans in parts of the past two centuries. It is also similar to the current fear of Hispanic immigrants or Hispanic Americans today. ..... How can Rep. Goode swear to uphold the Constitution while believing we must deny the equal protection to Islamic Americans? Open letter to Goode from Anti-Defamation League (now there is a hot bed of liberals ) http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/goode_ltr.asp:We are writing to express strong concerns about reports that you sent a letter to constituents assailing immigration to the United States by Muslims and the use of the Koran to swear in an elected Member of Congress. Your letter demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the fundamental religious guarantees enshrined in the US Constitution. Article VI, Clause 3 states that, "no religious Test shall ever be required" to hold public office in America. Members of Congress, like all Americans, should be free to observe their own religious practices without government interference or coercion. .... While we would note that Representative-elect Ellison is not an immigrant, we must take issue with your view that immigration to the US by Muslims or members of any other faith is somehow not in concert with American values and traditions. Quite the contrary. A fundamental hallmark of America is in how we as a nation have embraced immigrants of all faiths and national origins. The Roanoke VA Times http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/wb/xp-97084:Rep. Goode is mistaken. Not all of his constituents are narrow-minded bigots. ..... Goode never intended for everyone to know that he fears now that one Muslim has been elected to Congress, illegal immigrants and terrorists will pour over our boundaries. His letter -- the one that has made national news for a few days running -- was intended to go out to only his xenophobic supporters. One copy mistakenly went to a non-supporter in what Goode's office claimed was a "clerical error." Too late. They couldn't take it back or deny it. Instead, Goode defends his stance and claims it mirrors his constituents' views. Would that include his thousand or so constituents of Arab descent? Or those of African descent who make up about 23 percent of his district? They can keenly recall a Virginia that tried to bar them from entering "white" society with the same repugnant fears. Do the residents of the 5th District share Goode's modern-day bigotry? The only threat to American values is from those xenophobes who would trample on our Constitution to protect their sensibilities and forget that we are a nation of immigrants. Other editorials: http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=173416 http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/local.cfm?ArticleID=7977 http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061222/OPINION01/612220358/1021/OPINION01 http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2006/12/21/1222edmuslim.html (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution) http://www.timesdispatch.com/servle...ticle&cid=1149192301267&path=!news!columnists (The Richmond [VA] Times Dispatch) http://houseoflabor.tpmcafe.com/blog/the_rp/2006/dec/21/xenophobia_ludacris_and_out_dated The source that broke "Goodegate" was C-ville "Charlottesville's weekly newspaper" (that's Charlottesville North Carolina, which is a real "liberal hotbed".... NOT. Their article was titled "Goode makes complete ass of self" http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=141404064431134&ShowArticle_ID=11041812060944420:Contacted by C-VILLE on December 20, Goode's press secretary Linwood Duncan said, "He has no intention of apologizing and he stands by the letter." Duncan took the call after a Goode staffer, who had answered the phone, asked C-VILLE, "Are you going to call us an 'ass' again?" The answer: Yes.Quote is in addendum to original article. ------ NEWS FLASH: Definitive proof that the U.S. was not founded on the Christian Religion. President Adams and Senate, which just happened to be full of founding fathers explicitly stated in our treaty with Tripoli (now Libya) on November 4,1796 that:"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."Don't believe me, see http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm Article XI. Now the Yale Law School wouldn't lie to us would they? Oh and do remember that treaties have to be approved by the Senate. Folks this is definitive proof that the United States WAS NOT founded on the Christian Religion. It is also further proof that our Founding Fathers did know and intend for our freedom of religion to include Islam.
. A-hahahahahahahahahahahahha!!! So lame. I married an immigrant, I made little immigrant babies But I despise these muslim fanatics and I know the world will soon be embroiled in a war, culturally, spiritually, and physically if we don't do something to limit their expansion and soon. Most important??? Stopping apologists like you from smoke-screening the real issues. What the heck does your last post have to do, really, with where we started from? Whether or not Obama (is this his name? I can't remember, it's early) need have to swear on a Bible. My vote was no, incidentally, none should need to swear on the Bible. God does'nt even like you to swear on His Bible is my read on the thing. But half the time here it seems folks are just getting pulled from one rabbit trail to another because of [apologist] posts like yours above. Why not start another thread? Better yet, why don't you just get off your bandwagon altogether, stop loathing yourself, faith and country, and use that time instead to "batten down the hatches." Because these boyos, these militant muslims pecker-heads, are for real... and they hate you. And they will take a steak knife, while four others hold you down, and hack your head off with it in their utter cowardess. And in the name of their bloody god (small 'g'). No, he should not have to swear an oath on the Bible.
why are you guys so scared of a bunch of cave dwellers? some criminal group, that numbered like less 5000 people get lucky and pull of a successfult attack, and you guys are OMG its the end of days, world war 3, the muslims are taking over the world etc
ferret... in a word we are scared of YOU! You and others like you whose lack of due diligence and bleeding heart reactions are what has allowed them to trample the laws of Western Europe. They gain strength by your weakness.
A bleeding heart liberal who through lack of due diligence allowed the way for Muslims was...... NEW FLASH: Ben Franklin (the air is thick with sarcasm) From Ben Franklin's autobiography concerning a non-denominational place of public preaching he helped found (http://mith2.umd.edu/eada/html/display.php?docs=franklin_autobiography.xml):Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service. Yes that's right folks, our esteemed founding father Ben Franklin made sure that Muslim missionaries (or any missionary for that matter) had a place to preach in Philadelphia (the city of brotherly love). How scary was that?
Hahahahaha!!! Here we go again, another rabbit trail. No one here is saying muslims cannot follow their faith, what we are saying is that Islamists cannot be allowed exceptional privilege in this regard. They cannot feel free to disparage the faith of others but threaten (and in all too many cases) maim or murder those who are underwhelmed with the bloody inconsistencies of their false and bloody prophet mohammed. They cannot be allowed to slice off the heads of little Indonesian girls walking through a field because they are Christian... And apologists like yourself turn your blind eye towards this at the worlds peril. They are just muslems... you are the cancer.
yeah right, you guys are the tools who want to start WW3 and religous wars just like bin laden wanted did you think the thought wouldn't do anything after 911? He planned on us going overboard and driving the moderate muslims to side with, you guys are just too stupid to see how you are playing into his hands PS you guys lost the election, get over it, you are going to lose even bigger next election, so go on carry on with bogey men and religious war talk, the country sees thru it, as was shown by the elections
Where is holding a Quran during the taking an oath an exceptional privilege? That is the matter at hand. Unlike you who is more than free to disparage the faith of others and oppress them in any way you see fit. Here are some more quotes from some apologists: From Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention for the First Amendment of the Constitution 30 July 1788 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions52.htm): Governor Johnston:It appears to me that it would have been dangerous, if Congress could intermeddle with the subject of religion. True religion is derived from a much higher source than human laws. When any attempt is made, by any government, to restrain men's consciences, no good consequence can possibly follow. It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans [Muslims], pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Mr. Iredell:Upon the principles I have stated, I confess the restriction on the power of Congress, in this particular, has my hearty approbation. They certainly have no authority to interfere in the establishment of any religion whatsoever; and I am astonished that any gentleman should conceive they have. Is there any power given to Congress in matters of religion? Can they pass a single act to impair our religious liberties? If they could, it would be a just cause of alarm. If they could, sir, no man would have more horror against it than myself. Happily, no sect here is superior to another. As long as this is the case, we shall be free from those persecutions and distractions with which other countries have been torn.Mr. Spaight:No sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. No test is required. All men of equal capacity and integrity, are equally eligible to offices. Temporal violence might make mankind wicked, but never religious. A test would enable the prevailing sect to persecute the rest.
Hahahahaha!!! Another rabbit trail. Quite to the contrary I do NOT believe holding the Koran and swearing an oath upon it would be "exceptional privilege." IN fact, what I actually said here was I couldn't care less if they rubbed Bhudda's fat belly. This is what we mean when we say you are an apologist. Actually I have never oppressed anyone. The argument here is that muslem islamists kill indiscriminately those who do not worship their bloody and false god believing that their book says to do so. That is what I call oppression. What you call oppression is not being allowed to flap your lips without being taken to task, and your apparent inability to think things through and rightfully being called upon it. You are in way over your head but instead of learning you just a keep on mouthin' I will say a prayer tonight that you learn something from all this. I haven't done this for you yet and I apologise.
I do recall but it is 15 pages and it gets hard to remember who said what at times. So my apologies. This thread is however about a Muslim Congressman taking his oath using a Quran and as such it is pertinent to point out that no special privileges being sought. All people in this country must abide by the laws of this country regardless of their religion. At the same time it is very clear in the Constitution that no law can be made in regards to religion. No one here is promoting the idea that anyone should be above the law. No that is a different thread. This thread is about whether one should be allowed to use the religious scriptures of their choice when taking an oath. Our founding fathers were very clear about this and they were exceedingly explicit in their debates that this religious freedom included Islam. Please don't. There are many here that need to learn a lot, but they aren't who you think they are. The problem is you and many others have a perverted view of other religions and do what you can to spread disinformation about those religions. Now you do have the right to believe what ever you want, but many, if not most, of us do not believe what you believe and this is why our founding fathers were so explicit about our freedom of religion and the separation of Church and State. So long as they do not violate the laws of our land, people in this country have the right to practice the religion of their choosing including Islam. You may see it as a violent religion, but many including those who practice it do not. They see it as a religion of peace and would never consider spreading their beliefs via cohersion as some here would do. Some more things you should read: President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, on Jan 1, 1802 (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html):To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem. Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.Emphasis added by me Baptist Faith and Message Statement (first adopted in 1925 with minor update to this passage in 2000), Southern Baptist Convention http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp XVII. Religious Liberty God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power. It is very clear that even to the SBC that there must be a clear and distinct separation between Church and State and that "the state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends." This must include those religions that some find disagreeable, because every religion is disagreeable to someone. You may find Islam as you BELIEVE it to be to be disagreeable, but others do not believe Islam preaches what you believe it does and the beauty of our country is that we are ALL free to have our beliefs provided we obey the laws of this land. Pastor Richard T. Zuelch in his letter to the Los Angeles Times on August 14, 1995 ([urlhttp://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm[/url]):ordon S. Wood, in his 1992 book, "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," states that, by the 1790's only about 10% of the American population regularly attended religious services - to quote just one statistic. Not exactly an indication of a wholehearted national commitment to Christianity! It is a matter of simple historical fact that the United States was not founded as, nor was it ever intended to be, a Christian nation. That there were strong, long-lasting Christian influences involved in the nation's earliest history, due to the Puritan settlements and those of other religious persons escaping European persecution, cannot be denied. But that is a long way from saying that colonial leaders, by the time of the outbreak of the Revolution, were intending to form a nation founded on specifically Christian principles and doctrine. We Christians do ourselves no favor by bending history to suit our prejudices or to accommodate wishful thinking. Rather than continue to cling to a "Moral Majority"-style fantasy that says America is a Christian nation that needs to be "taken back" from secular unbelief (we can't "take back" what we never had), it would be much healthier for us Christians to face reality, holding to what Jesus himself said in the Gospels: that Christians should never be surprised at the hostility with which the gospel would be greeted by the world, because most people would fail to believe in him, thereby strongly implying that, in every age and country, Christianity would always be a minority faith. (Rev. Richard T. Zuelch, Letter to the Editor, Los Angeles Times, August 1995)
You're preaching to the choir, bro... Truth is like a house built upon solid rock, so stop trying to fog what you been doing here in this thread. It opened righteous, now it seems to be trying to get back there. I welcome such efforts.
KLB goes to great lengths to pretend these verses do not exist and are used by muslims around the world to justify violent jihad against non-believers. I was astonished to see him initially lie, then move on to denial, then move on to deceit and finally using the "out of context" card with no idea of what context they belonged in ... only to turn around and use the very same source (USC) to quote verses to make lame arguments later on. It was just one of many cases of hypocrisy he has put forth in his attempt to whitewash and cover up the truth, as an apologist. I see now, he is attempting to hide behind "Ben Franklin," of all people. As pointed out, a rabbit trail. For Franklin noted they would have a pulpit to preach. Of course, muslims have a pulpit to preach throughout America, unfortunately. Of course, KLB would prefer to cover up what is being taught in these mosques, because he lives in a world of deception, revisionism and outright denial. He hides behind the Constitution, as his shield, not realizing that Congress is not printing Bibles for the masses. What's really interesting here, as that another islamic apologist, Juan Cole, is promoting the very same material on the front page of his site right now. It would seem that KLB, in his search for friendly apologists who attempt to deceive others, found Cole's site and basically used his lame argument, copy/paste and never noting such. Of course, who could blame him? KLB has no knowledge of the subject himself...he's continuously used virtually every heavy weight apologist on the list so far, except for Karen Armstrong. Of course, we know that mosques are a plenty throughout America, yet that doesn't stop him from abusing Ben Franklin for political purposes. http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2005/bn-2005-01-28.htm Given KLB's one-side anti-semitic revisionist diatribes against Israel earlier in the thread and being well aware of islam's fanatical hatred towards Jews and Israel and even being introduced to direct verses of the quran which preach hatred towards Jews (as well as Christians), it's no wonder he has chosen to be an apologist for islam. The glove fits the hand to a T. In fact, going back in history, we know that islam was Hitler's cheerleader and, well, we see who is islam's cheerleader here today. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...ec20,0,6296362.column?coll=la-home-commentary KLB pretends to own the moral authority here, when in fact, all he does is demonstrate (voluntarily) his views against Israel and Jews. He wants others to be tolerant of religious scriptures that call for our death, as if he, himself, would be the first in line to lay down the life of his family members because they are infidels. Tolerate the intolerant. KLB goes on to ask the question: That was demonstrated early on and has been demonstrated quite often throughout the the thread. When a religious sect's scriptures call for the death of those who do not believe in that religious sect's scriptures, it IS exceptional. When a religious book instructs it's followers to not befriend Christians and Jews, it IS exceptional. When a religious book and it's teachings note words to the affect, the tree/stone said "there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." it is exceptional. For taking an oath on a book filled with such hatred, when the oath taker is swearing to uphold our Country's Consititution based upon this kind of hatred towards others, is indeed exceptional and dangerous. Of course, even in the presence of overhwelming evidence (including from the same sources he has chosen to use), KLB's only course of action is denial. To suggest they in fact don't exist, then suggest they do, but are out of context with no ability to place such in context. When others do what he cannot...place them in context, denial is once again, the only course of action. We should all be aware. Though KLB has gone to great lengths to cover up the truth, being aware is not politically incorrect. And we should be exceptionally concerned with those who use deception, denial and outright lies to suggest there is nothing to worry about. We should be aware when school districts ban the book because of referneces to Jews as apes and pigs. We should be aware of the beheadings and murders in the name of islam taking place on a regular basis. We should be aware of the signs carried at protests. We should be aware the ties to terrorist groups and convictions of CAIR members for such. We should be aware of what is taught in mosques in Europe. We should be aware of the reality in Indonesia. We should be aware of what is being taught in mosques in the Czech Republic. We most definitely should be aware of what is being taught in mosques in the US. We should not forget Beslan. We should be aware of the plots uncovered here in the US. We should be aware of the fake charities setup and those who crop up in the media that were associated with such. We should be aware of what is going on in the world around us. We should be aware of so many different things going on in the UK. We should be aware of what's going on in Germany. We should be aware of the reaction around the world when fake stories about flushing a book down the toilet get out. We should be aware of the riots in France. We should be aware of riots around the world over cartoons. We should be aware of the riots, killings, torchings, murders when the Pope quotes something that turns out to still be true today. We should be aware of how women are treated in islamic countries.
The only hypocrisy here is from people like yourself who claim to be good Americans protecting the American values and then trampling over everything in our Constitution and ignoring what our founding fathers wrote. You my friend, need to take a very long and thorough civics class that requires you to memorize our Declaration of Independence and Constitution (including the Bill of Rights). The course also needs you to read, study and fully understand the debates, writings and speeches of our founding fathers. I've provided many good reference sources (e.g. Library of Congress) that are beyond reproach for you to start your civics lessons. I even provided reference sources to a school of theology that is associated with the Southern Baptist Convention and to the Southern Baptist Convention's articles of faith. Unlike you I do my own thinking, my own research and I avail myself of resources well beyond my own political and/or religious bias. I sought out and referenced wide ranges of sources, yes I have referenced liberal sources, but I also referenced conservative sources and focused on historical sources. I have sought out and reference religious opinions including Muslim, conservative Christian, Jewish and Israeli opinions and writings on the matters at hand. All you can do is quote a few narrow minded people and rehash your tired twisting of religion and intolerant dogmas. Those that preach hatred and intolerance like you do have ALWAYS come out on the wrong side of history. In the case of religious freedoms our founding fathers knew just how important it was to protect EVERYONE'S right to practice what ever religion they believed in and just how important it is to keep government and religion separated. Even in Israel an ostensibly Jewish country it is understood that the freedom of religion is critical and non-Jewish citizens, including Muslims, can be and are elected to their government. I might also point out the writings I have referenced that are MOST protective of Muslims were those by Israeli Jews who went out of their way to dispel the myths of religious cohersion by Islam that people like you try to perpetrate. To the contrary, this is not a rabbit trail those writings are most pertinent to this discussion, but they are inconvenient to you because they show how wrong you are. The only lies and cover-up are coming from people like you who just regurgitate the same old lies, hatred and intolerance that has been spoon fed to them. Have you ever lived with Muslims in your household? Have you ever worked with them or really gotten to know them? Based on what you keep writing here I know for certain that you have not. I have lived and worked with Muslims from many corners of this world including: Kenya, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, India, America, former Soviet Republics, etc. Every one of them were decent God fearing people whom I was proud to call friends. They truly sought peace and tolerance as much as the next person and had absolutely no desire to try and convert anyone to their beliefs. If asked about their religion they would share but unlike so many Christian fundamentalists they did not try and push their beliefs on others nor did they try to convert others through any means other than simply leading good honorable lives. I have lived in communities where Muslims, Christians and Jews peacefully lived and worked together for a common goal. I have shared my table and opened my home to Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. In my life I have worked with Israelis and Palestinians, and found them both to be honorable people. Would you share your house with a Muslim and take the time to get to know them? I doubt it and this is the problem. You only know what you have been told and what you have been told and have become to believe are disgraceful lies. Oh so now the Constitution is suspect is that it? I will take this insult as a badge of honor. If you do not like the protections afforded to ALL Americans by the Constitution then you should leave this country and move to maybe Poland. I hear Poland is going to declare Christ as the king of their country and they have already declared Mary other of Jesus as their honorary queen. Poland sounds like this would be much more to your religious liking. I am not familiar with Juan Cole, but being as you don't like him, I'm sure he is a reliable source. I did something you don't have the ability to do; instead of allowing my self to be spoon fed by some talking head (as you do), I did my own research. Rather than regurgitating the tired old dogma of others; I did my own research and that research is not complete. Look at the reference sources I used, are you now going to smear the Library of Congress, the University of Chicago, the Yale Law School, a theology school that is associated with the Southern Baptist Convention, the Virginia Interfaith Center, etc? Did I take the Constitution, the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, Ben Franklin's writings, Thomas Jefferson's writings, the Constitutional Convention debates, etc. out of context or did I misquote them? If I did, prove it. I noted the source of all of the references I cited for all to read all you need to do is follow the hyper links I provided (but I imagine this was too much trouble for some). You are a most despicable person and your cause extremely weak if you must stoop to such vile and baseless slander. There is a MASSIVE difference between questioning Israeli policies and being anti-Semitic. Many people including devout Jews and Israelis question and criticize Israeli policies in regards to the Palestinians. I have even referenced some of those Jewish sources on this issue if you had taken the time to read (oh I'm sorry this would require you to risk having to open your mind to the truth). To criticize Israeli policy in regards to the Palestinians no more makes one anti-Semitic than questioning President Bush's policies makes one un-American. One can admire and/or respect a people while criticizing their country's policies. I also freely criticize the policies of the Iranian government but hold no animosity towards the Iranian people. Again you will find many Iranians who will openly criticize Iranian policies (when they can do so safely, e.g. aren't in Iran) and you will find many Jews (in and out of Israel) who will criticize Israeli policy. The only ones, who in general, seem to fear criticizing Israeli policy, are conservative Christians. Maybe this fear of criticizing Israeli policy is because Christianity has treated Jews so badly over the past millennia and those individuals have some deep seated sense of guilt. This is a lie and I have referenced writings by Israeli Jews that says as much. The people who have traditionally treated Jews poorly have been Christians. I might remind folks that Jews have been traditionally been the target of terrible oppression and violence throughout the past 1,000 years in Western civilization and that terrible oppression came to a head in WWII. The Holocaust (aka Shoah) of WWII did not take place in Muslim nations but in "enlightened" predominantly Christian European nations. Making maters worse, it was the Catholic Church that stood by and did not speak out strongly enough against the atrocities while they were taking place and it was Christian nations who failed to open their borders to Jewish refugees seeking shelter (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...nts/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html). The German Government at the time may not have been Christian (it was after all "neo-pagan"), but many of those who carried out the orders and many of the German people were Christian, yet not enough of these Christians stood up to protect the Jews or stop the hatred being spread by Hitler. There is so much that is shameful in Christian history, but we should not be so apologetic about the past that we fail to criticize the Israeli government policies when we see wrongs being committed. It was after all the failure of people to stand up and criticize that lead to the Holocaust. Unlike say the Catholic Church and Christians who could have done more. From: Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews: We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah: III. Relations between Jews and Christians (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...nts/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html): The history of relations between Jews and Christians is a tormented one. His Holiness Pope John Paul II has recognized this fact in his repeated appeals to Catholics to see where we stand with regard to our relations with the Jewish people.(6) In effect, the balance of these relations over two thousand years has been quite negative.(7) At the dawn of Christianity, after the crucifixion of Jesus, there arose disputes between the early Church and the Jewish leaders and people who, in their devotion to the Law, on occasion violently opposed the preachers of the Gospel and the first Christians. In the pagan Roman Empire, Jews were legally protected by the privileges granted by the Emperor and the authorities at first made no distinction between Jewish and Christian communities. Soon however, Christians incurred the persecution of the State. Later, when the Emperors themselves converted to Christianity, they at first continued to guarantee Jewish privileges. But Christian mobs who attacked pagan temples sometimes did the same to synagogues, not without being influenced by certain interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people as a whole. "In the Christian world—I do not say on the part of the Church as such—erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability have circulated for too long, engendering feelings of hostility towards this people".(8) Such interpretations of the New Testament have been totally and definitively rejected by the Second Vatican Council.(9) Despite the Christian preaching of love for all, even for one's enemies, the prevailing mentality down the centuries penalized minorities and those who were in any way "different". Sentiments of anti-Judaism in some Christian quarters, and the gap which existed between the Church and the Jewish people, led to a generalized discrimination, which ended at times in expulsions or attempts at forced conversions. In a large part of the "Christian" world, until the end of the 18th century, those who were not Christian did not always enjoy a fully guaranteed juridical status. Despite that fact, Jews throughout Christendom held on to their religious traditions and communal customs. They were therefore looked upon with a certain suspicion and mistrust. In times of crisis such as famine, war, pestilence or social tensions, the Jewish minority was sometimes taken as a scapegoat and became the victim of violence, looting, even massacres.Yep Christians have treated Jews and other "non-believers" so well throughout history... You can repeat this lie a thousand times and it will not make it true. I question and criticize Israeli government policies, but this is not as the same as holding or preaching views against Israel or the Jews. All people have the right to their beliefs and the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have lived a life that is more ethnically diverse than most Americans and I know what it is like to be the minority group that is discriminated against (try being one of five white kids in a school of 550 some time; I was and it is a real eye opener). While maybe things should have been handled differently at the end of the first and second world wars in the Middle East, we must deal with the reality on the ground. The reality in the little strip of land on the Eastern Mediterranean Sea is that the only solution is a TWO state solution. Just as there is a state of Israel there must also be a state of Palestine and their mutual border must be along the pre-1967 border. The Palestinian people can not be expected to live forever as a stateless people who are oppressed and victimized by outside forces (be those forces Israel or Iran). This two state solution must be implemented in spite of the violence being foist upon the Israeli - Palestinian issue by outside forces (e.g. Iran). Those outside forces do not want a two state solution because it would mean that the biggest barrier to peace in the Middle East will have been resolved and they can no longer exploit the issue for their own geopolitical self interest. Regardless of what you want to believe, there are no exceptions written into the Constitution and our founding fathers were very explicit about this. Millions of people have died and/or been persecuted at the hands of Christianity and our founding fathers recognized this fact: James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments 20 June 1785 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html): Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator.James Madison recognized something some here are incapable of understanding. Just because one person believes something about another religion to be true, even IF they compiled a whole bunch of "evidence" does not mean it is true or right and that no one can deny others their unalienable rights to their own convections. Many if not most Muslims would take issue with the way GTech and others try to twist Islam because it is not the Islam those people know. Continuing with James Madison's letter cited above:Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?Allowing government to exclude a specific religion is a slippery slope. In order to protect one's own religion, one must not allow a government authority to discriminate against or promote ANY religion. The exclusion of one religion today (say Islam) could allow another religion (say Baptists) to be excluded later when the political tides change. Protecting the religious rights of even unfavored groups ensures that our religious beliefs will be protected later if and when they become unfavored. Continuing with James Madison's letter cited above: Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.It is not up to government or you to decide what is the one right religion. Each person must make their own decision via their own free will and only God can hold them accountable for their beliefs. Continuing with James Madison's letter cited above: Are the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? Can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others?I have lived amongst and with Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons and Christians of different faiths (I even attended a Quaker college) and the only ones who ever tried to convert me to their religion have been the Mormons, Baptists and some of the other fundamentalist Christian religions. No other religious tradition beyond the fundamentalist Christian denominations and the Mormons (not even the Quakers when I was attending a Friends college) tried to foist their beliefs upon me least of all the Muslims.