Oh Noes! Muslim Congressman Plans To Swear In On Koran!

The BBQ Pit
301

[QUOTE=elucidator]
“Some”, eh? What a carefully trapdoored wording, “some”. Could you be more specific? Some public figure or spokesman for this dominant force in the radical secularist movement? Have they direct ties to the War on Christmas? Do they take their marching orders directly from the Worldwide Islamofacist Central Committee?
[/QUOTE]

I can just imaging the response if I didn’t qualify and implied “all”. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=elucidator]
We are at great pains to assure the Muslims of the world that the propaganda of our enemies is a lie, that we are not at odds with Islam but with a virulent subset of men who exploit Islam to their own nefarious ends. The election of Ellison is a happy coincidence, a “progaganda of the deed” that underlines the inclusiveness of our culture and politics. It is vital that we make this point clear.
[/QUOTE]

We are not at odds with any sane strain of Islam. Perhaps it would help if you would share precisley which proportion are sane and which are murderous barbarous scumbags. And then if you would be so kind as to identify them, we can all move along with greater unanamity.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Imagine, if you will, such a discussion on an Islamic web site, where moderates advance the election of Ellison as proof that America is not an enemy of Islam. Mr. Pronger might be cited as proof of the opposite. He could hardly do more harm to our nation if his intentions were as malign as his reasoning. Please be so kind as to not offer aid and comfort to our enemies, as our Leader is more than sufficient, he is the gift that keeps on giving.
[/QUOTE]

Proof enough is the very little backlash there was post 9/11. And he was elected, wasn’t he. The only thing causing the flap was the subject of The Koran being used in a swearing in ceremony. And if you would go back and read my very first post in this thread you will see that I thought (think) that if someone is going to swear and oath that the thing he swear upon be near and dear to his heart. I heard Prager speak on TV and saw that his position was not as it was described in this thread (which was based on the article). I find his position novel and interesting. That has lead to a more expanded discussion which I also find interesting. My apologies for not typing in lockstep.

302

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
[/QUOTE]

Yes. See my post #291.

303

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You misspelled “religious.”
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. I am a “secularist” and would love to see Christianity lose power. But I have zero desire to see it replaced with another religion.

304

[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
So, how woud this work? Would it be houris doing the blowing? Seventy-two virgins? Would we have to stand in line, or sign up for some kind of lottery?

I need DETAILS, man!
[/QUOTE]

:smack: Now that’s funny. Make that “…blowing UP…”

305

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Book of Mormon is a better choice. Homegrown, 100% American! Clear that marriage is between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman…
[/QUOTE]

I know you’re joking, but I just want to point out that the Book of Mormon itself is actually anti-polygamy, making it very clear early on that polygyny is a sin, that the people engaging in it are unrighteous, and that they are wrong to hold up David and Solomon in the Bible as a justification for their own polygamy because David and Solomon’s taking of many wives was abominable before the Lord.

It wasn’t until later that God told Joseph Smith that it was actually okay sometimes.

306

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I said few secularists “who believe this and would happily promote Islam to the point of being the dominant religion”. Do you believe there are few of them? Any belief? Really? That nihilism lobby’s got the ear of the President, I hear.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see how my answer is unclear. The number of secularists is not few and whatever their actual number I do not think they would happily promote Islam to the point of being the dominant religion. What is unclear?

And I think you skipped over the word “almost”, which I actually went back and added because I thought someone would want to be cute and say "Any? Really? How about ________? I must say I didn’t think it would be you to justify my fears.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Anyway, you said that you were worried by their potential actions. If you don’t think they want to promote Islam into a position of dominance, does that mean you’re afraid they’ll promote various other beliefs into a position of equality with Christianity? That doesn’t sound too bad to me.
[/QUOTE]

Even though I do not practice any religion, I think that a dominant religion is a good thing, especially when it is tied to the founding of our country. The more and more people that decide to live together the more valuabel I find common denominators, whether they be language, religion, views on children and the elderly, etc.

307

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I can just imaging the response if I didn’t qualify and implied “all”…
[/quote]

Most likely howls of derisive laughter. Be that as it may, shall we take your evasion to mean that, in fact, you cannot?

Wouldn’t hazard a guess. It would be fair to say that the proportion of those Muslims who despise us and everything we stand for has likely gone up. When men of evil counsel insinuate that America hates Islam so much that we will invade an Islamic nation on no basis whatsoever, that is bad enough, it sways some of the more easily affected. When we actually do it, of course, it sways the rest. Often, it seems we can’t wait to prove their point for them. If our enemies had written the Abu Ghraib script, it could have hardly been better for them.

We can agree, I trust, that fewer enemies is better than more? And that such incidents as provoke their distrust are counter-productive? And that Mr. Prager is a slime-sucking pusbucket who craves attention, who wet-dreams at night about Limbaughs market share?

Quite all right. Clearly, you are an independent thinker whose conjectures soar aloft, free of the surly bonds of reason and proof. We of the Hivemind Left can only gape in awe, trapped as we are by our ideological rigidity.

308

[QUOTE=magellan01]

Yes. See my post #291.
[/QUOTE]
You know that this is total crap, don’t you? The enemy of my enemy can be my tool in certain circumstances when I am clever enough to make him behave as one. Just as I can be his tool if he proves to be cleverer than I*. It takes a breathtaking level of stupidity to equate such utility with friendship.

Personally, I don’t really believe such stupidity is to be found in sufficient abundance among the Americans United for Separation of Church and State crowd to make your post #291 anything other than a strawman. The Flying Dutchman’s unhelpful oversimplifications notwithstanding.

*This is, is it not, the very essence of the term useful idiots? Please correct me if I’m missing some subtler meaning behind the term.

309

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I don’t see how my answer is unclear. The number of secularists is not few and whatever their actual number I do not think they would happily promote Islam to the point of being the dominant religion. What is unclear?
[/quote]
It was a misunderstanding on my part - I didn’t believe you could be saying “I have a problem with there being an equality of religion in society” (which it appears you actually are), so I mistakenly thought you were communicating badly. Sorry.

I’m not entirely sure if that was a compliment or an insult, so i’ll assume it was neutral. And you’re right, you did say almost; where would you say the secularists draw the line between acceptable beliefs and unacceptable ones? In your experience, I mean.

I disagree. Common denominators are good, and you need them in order to live with each other - certainly if you had a commie pinko liberal living next door to a fascist conservative bastard, there’d be problems. But conflict within a society can also be good; sameness can breed complacency, in the form of “What we do works, why should we change to something else?” as well as a mistrust for differences. And, speaking spiritually and morally, while we can better ourselves and consider our points of view by looking internally, it’s only when we’re actually faced with someone who disagrees with us that we’re able to change significantly - whether that means converting or a stronger, more clear sense of our own ideas, being presented with ideas different to your own can be very beneficial. To you and them.

And I think you’re missing the bigger picture. Look at the world stage - the U.S. may have many common denominators with Canada and the U.K., but it’s ties to the Islamic countries that the U.S. needs right now. And if you treat Islamic beliefs as not being “our thing”, you’re just highlighting those differences. If the U.S. were to make a great show of saying “We are not against Islam and Muslims. We treat Islam as we would any other religion. Our enemies are terrorists and extremists; and we will fight against them. But moderate Islam is part of us, just as is any other religion of peace.”, and backed it up legally, that would present a much better U.S. prescence internationally. I’m not saying it would solve all the problems. Just that it would help.

310

[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
You know that this is total crap, don’t you? The enemy of my enemy can be my tool in certain circumstances when I am clever enough to make him behave as one. Just as I can be his tool if he proves to be cleverer than I*. It takes a breathtaking level of stupidity to equate such utility with friendship.

Personally, I don’t really believe such stupidity is to be found in sufficient abundance among the Americans United for Separation of Church and State crowd to make your post #291 anything other than a strawman. The Flying Dutchman’s unhelpful oversimplifications notwithstanding.
[/QUOTE]

What the hell are you going on about? My off-handed use of the term did not imply that it was akin to a law of the universe. It is an idea passed down through centuries that has some truth in it. If not, I doubt it would have survived this long. When a subsequent poster brought it up I directed to a post that I thought he might have missed.

So, you declared an off-hand phrase a strawman then torched it because it was not a universal (which no one claimed or implied). Uh, good job.

Now since you characterized it as “total crap”, perhaps you like to show me how there is absolutley NO truth in the ancient pearl of wisdom. You know, since it’s TOTAL crap.

311

[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
The Flying Dutchman’s unhelpful oversimplifications notwithstanding.

[/QUOTE]

I think it is helpful when posting on the clearly overwhelming secularist board (atheist and religious) that many Christians feel they are unfairly treated in secular America when year after year they see their Christian traditions whittled away by the governments . At the same time they see an increasing presence of Muslims and support by other Americans for the rights and acceptance of the Muslim faith in America. Like Prager they will look for issues to draw attention to their problem.

Keep in mind also that the fraternity of Christianity extends throughout the world and that includes all the Islamic countries. While they hear of Muslim grievances in the West resulting in world wide condemnation reported in the press, they know that Christians are second class citizens in just about all Muslim countries including “secular” Turkey. Rarely is that discussed in the mainstream media.

So we laugh at Prager and criticize the response to the Imams, while you denigrate your own countrymen for being stupid without having all the facts at your disposal.

There’s a lot of talk about what Americans have to do to show the Muslims that America is not against Islam. There is absolutely no equivalent sentiment among the vocal secularists that I can see towards Christianity.

I think it is helpful for you a secularist to know that the phrase “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is exactly how you are perceived by a lot of Christians. Few believe that secularists are actually defending the Islamic faith for its sake.

312

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I think it is helpful for you a secularist to know that the phrase “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is exactly how you are perceived by a lot of Christians. Few believe that secularists are actually defending the Islamic faith for its sake.
[/QUOTE]
And your point is what, exactly? That such people are wrong? I agree.

313

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
And your point is what, exactly? That such people are wrong? I agree.
[/QUOTE]

It isn’t helpfull for me to say they are right or wrong. The reality is the perception, and that is a problem.

314

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
It isn’t helpfull for me to say they are right or wrong. The reality is the perception, and that is a problem.
[/QUOTE]
But they are wrong. And i’m not talking about “Can we really say whose beliefs are right or wrong?” because we can’t. If they think that secularists want to treat Christians unfairly then for (the vast majority, anyway) that’s incorrect. Secularists want to treat all religions exactly the same - that’s the very definition of fair.

But I do see your point. It’s their perception that’s a problem. What do you suggest would help to change their view of this situation? Can it be?

315

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I think it is helpful when posting on the clearly overwhelming secularist board (atheist and religious) that many Christians feel they are unfairly treated in secular America when year after year they see their Christian traditions whittled away by the governments…
[/quote]

That sentence started off briskly, but seems to have taken a left turn at Albuquerque… And I think I can speak for many reasonable secularists, religious, atheist, and otherwise unsorted…when we say that it is not Christian traditions that are objectionable, but the privilege of official acknowledgement of those traditions. We accept without rancor the prevalence of Christian culture and tradition, and shrug off its burdens and offenses as minor inconveniences gladly borne in the name of tolerance.

If they actually had a problem, they wouldn’t need to invent issues. “War on Christmas”, my ass!

Yes, that happy family of Christians. Not Irish, I take it?

What would you like? Hourly breaking news, “This just in:religious minorities are frequently accorded lesser status in societys dominated by a religious majority.”? It is precisely this sort of official recognition of religious preference that we seek to undermine and overthrow. Where to begin? How about right here!

This sentence is too many for me, I fold. Suffice to say that ignorance is the condition that we despise, not those burdened. Though we do fairly despise those who exploit and foster such ignorance for their own malign purposes. Such as the oppression of their brothers. The answer to Cain’s question is “Yes, I am.”

For the same reason there is no massive protest movement rising up against the oppression of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Rest assured, so long as the traditions of Christmas are protected by such palladins as Best Buy and Wal Mart, there is scant chance of Christmas being removed from the federal holiday calender.

Then they are, once again, wrong. We’re working on that.

316

What do you suggest would help to change their view of this situation? Can it be?
[/QUOTE]

If I knew that, I would most certainly tell you.

317

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Even though I do not practice any religion, I think that a dominant religion is a good thing, especially when it is tied to the founding of our country. The more and more people that decide to live together the more valuabel I find common denominators, whether they be language, religion, views on children and the elderly, etc.
[/QUOTE]

“In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government.” – The Federalist Papers #51

318

[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
The Federalist Papers #51
[/QUOTE]

Why did the Founders hate America?

319

[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
“In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government.” – The Federalist Papers #51
[/QUOTE]

Excellent response and so true especially today. I just wonder though, given the common refrain “intent of the founding fathers” wrt to the US Constiution if the above paragraph would have been phrased exactly the same way if there was a Mohammedan community in New York at the time.

320

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Excellent response and so true especially today. I just wonder though, given the common refrain “intent of the founding fathers” wrt to the US Constiution if the above paragraph would have been phrased exactly the same way if there was a Mohammedan community in New York at the time.
[/QUOTE]
It may very well have been. The originator of Wahabbism (source of much, if not most, of today’s strife) was a contemporary of the Founding Fathers and his message did not spring into a full-fledged movement for many decades after his death in 1792. Therefore, the prevalent version of Islam that would have been present in 1780s New York would have been the more tolerant version that held that People of the Book were to be treated fairly and with compassion. Whether they would have supported representative government is a separate issue, of course, (most Christian Europeans were pretty negative toward representative government at the time), but there is no reason to believe that a Muslim community in New York would have opposed the direction of the new Constitution, had they been active members of the society at the time.