You keep using words like “coward” and “cowardly” as if you think a pseudonymous message board is a place where courage, moral or physical, is somehow demonstrated, as if we were not all safely ensconced in a warm and safe place, susceptible only to typed, pixel-scale blows and easily able to dodge even those just by squinting kinda hard. Most pathetically, you behave as if your own bellicosity were a red badge of courage rather than the unthinking reflex of a desperately frightened man. Frightened of the unknown, certainly, but also (judging by your reaction to facts laid most gently before you) of knowledge – an insurmountable dilemma.
Everybody who gives his allegience to a nation does so because he believes that there is a reciprocal relationship there: that is, that his nation is also looking out for him. But only the crackbrained few look in the mirror and see in themselves the apotheosis of an entire country. The talented among this group become dictator for life (so long as that may last); the others tend to fade into obscurity, after years or decades spent muttering to themselves on public transportation.
In fact, Cervais is doing you and everybody else a valuable service. He is treating your bigoted screeds not as a reasoned argument (which they’re not), but as the manifestation of a virulent and dangerous disease. After the ordinary and more gentle treatments (exposure to reality) prove ineffective, there comes a point where one must temporarily give up on the causes and act to suppress the symptoms. Derision and ridicule, though never prescribed for honest and open-minded disputants, are nonetheless indicated when those criteria do not apply.
In short, since you insist no matter what on retaining the scary alien world you keep inside your head, some of us have decided to…let you, and concentrate instead on keeping it inside its tiny prison. Frankly, it’s worth your sacrifice if (a) we can discourage the illness from spreading and (b) keep you from attracting enough real-life buddies to start causing trouble for the nice muslim family who just moved in down the street from you. Citing the federalist papers won’t do it? Okay, then, we’ll just rely on the fact that you’re acting like a child who’s just seen her first Halloween costume. A single muslim congressman, imposing sharia law in your home town? Or maybe interfering with the next attempt to outlaw burning the flag? Willikers!
Pretending you’re a creature of reason may once have seemed a good idea. But your posts only look like discussion. They’re actually unheeding, unreasoning, and most unforgiveably tediously repetitive parroting of whatever xenophobic demagogue just this minute polluted your e-mail in-box. **Cervaise ** (apparently) and I and I hope everyone else has or soon will conclude that your only purpose on this board is to trumpet your nativist, unifaith, unicolor credentials. It is no longer in the interest of fighting ignorance to pretend you’re worth answering, because that would be promoting a lie. It is, however, worth demonstrating that you’re a pitiable lunatic, dangerously out of step with the healthy development of the species as a whole, and that requires only a sense of humor. So be it, then.
Well, there’s short term divisivness, and long term divisivness. Ellison swearing on a Koran is divisive to folks like Prager and yourself. But when it’s shown that Ellison is not going to start sawing off people’s heads and planting IEDs near domestic military bases, most people on your side are going to forget this issue ever happened.
On the other hand, if we instituted a law saying that people couldn’t use the Koran to take their photo-op oaths, or made a huge deal out of a candidates religion every time a non-Christian runs for office, well… that’s sending a clear and unmistakable message that non-Christians are not “real” Americans, which will make them less interested in participating in our culture and government, leading to a loss of unity and cohesion to the country as a whole, and possibly, ultimatly, to large-scale social violence like we saw in France lately.
I’m as surprised as you. The idea that an elected representative has to hide any sign of his religious faith or else violate SOCAS is the sort of idiot twaddle you usually see from angry, small minded atheists. There’s nothing inherently wrong with a politician also being a public face for his faith, so long as he doesn’t allow his religious obligations to trump his political obligations. Ellison’s oath does not interfere with his ability to fulfil his role as a Senator, and Ellison taking an oath on a Koran does not force anyone else to follow Islamic religious law. No more than would a Christian swearing on a Bible do either of those.
People are, surprisingly enough, free to do things in this country that are dictated neither by their religion nor their profession. No one is claiming that Ellison was forced to swear on a Koran. It was entirely his choice to do so. The point is, attacking him for swearing on a Koran instead of a Bible is a major dick move.
Jesus, man, it’s just advertising. It’s not like it’s something important! It’s a show to impress the rubes and the suckers. It never occured to me that anyone with half an intellect actually took that crap seriously.
That bastard! Insisting that we show tolerance for differing faiths! What kind of country does he think this is?
He didn’t cause a stir over it. Dennis Prager caused a stir over it.
No one has claimed that using Jefferson’s Koran proves anything one way or the other. Hell, if the plain text of the Constitution itself doesn’t convince you you’re wrong, why would anyone expect this to work any better? It does, however, make a pretty good symbol of what Ellison (and every single other person in this thread besides yourself) is trying to argue: that an American Muslim can show respect for his faith and respect for his country at the same time. For someone so intensely concerned about the use of symbolism and connection with history in our political ceremonies, I’d think you’d approve of this bit of harmless showmanship.
Sorry, but you’re simply wrong. There is no one-to-one equivalence in the amount of evidence for the two sides of the argument. The evidence for the other side is paltry, particularly once one combs through the proferred claims and removes those that have been taken out of context or misattributed. The idea that the US was specifically founded to be a Christian nation is the Creationism of political theory. It’s got no support for itself, while the evidence for the opposite theory is overwhelming.
But how does it make it less acceptable? Why is it worse to use a Koran owned by one of the central figures of American political history, as opposed to any other Koran?
Again, you cannot have national unity if you treat a significant percentage of the population differently than everyone else. You do not have reverence for unity: you have reverence for conformity. That’s not the same thing at all.
What, precisely, do you want from Ellison to demonstrate that he’s not a threat to the American system of government? What proof do you need that he has not already provided?
I cannot imagine a realistic situation in which this information would not have come to light without wasting time worrying about what book the guy is going to use in his photo op. Unless the guy is some sort of a stealth fundamentalist, who believes in the most literal, restrictive interpretation of the Koran, but has never in his life made any sort of public statements about how the Koran should be interpreted, never advocated any political causes or policies that promote fundamentalist Islam, and never associated with any organizations or causes favored by Islamic fundamentalists. In short, your scenario would require the candidate either be a consumate, life-long liar, or a total political non-entity.
Well, it’s a lot easier to be the “good cop” when you’ve got so many other people eager to play the “bad cop.” But thanks for the kind words anyway.
Yes, since only in the past century has the human brain developed the capability of comprehending the concept of “planning for future events”. Thus, it was quite impossible for the people on the scene in Washington to have gotten a Bible ready during those eight days without the guidance of Mr. Roosevelt. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
JFtR, I was never under the impression that Rep. Ellison’s decision to use Jefferson’s copy of the Koran was ever intended to make it “more acceptable”, and I’m frankly surprised that anyone would think it was. I was personally offended (as well as somewhat amused) that Prager would presume to speak for me as an American, in declaring that there even was an “American standard of acceptability”, if you will, in the choice of prop for the private ceremony, much less that the text of the representative’s holy book didn’t meet it, on the grounds of insufficient adherence to “American traditions”.
I saw both propositions as being preposterously, laughably, wrong. I suspect that Rep. Ellison would agree with me as to the wrongness (if not the comic value) of at least the second, and possibly also the first. The choice of Jefferson’s Koran, I saw as more of a tweak of the nose, as in: “If for the sake of argument, we accept that there is a standard of acceptability, let’s see you claim that that standard is not met by the use of an actual RELIC of a by-god-bona-fide FOUNDING FATHER, ya ignorant Yahoos.”
Personally, in the Honorable M. Ellison’s position, I like to think that I would have had my office issue a statement to the effect that the ceremony was a private affair, to be conducted as I see fit, and the records of which would be used as I see fit. This office will not engage in further discussion of the matter.[/spoiler]
…but after the remarks of the Royal Consommellier, there’s probably not a lot of point.
On Preview: Huh. So that’s what happens to a quote in a Spoiler.
That tragic day in September we were left with 2 smoldering ruins of once proud buildings, a smoking Pentagon and a band of hero-citizens who gave their lives over PA. The death toll was almost 3,000 dead from many nations that day.
We let our guard down and they have lashed out at us again, this time by posing for pictures and promising to serve the nation while placing their hand on a book that is not about Jesus.
Will the nation ever recover from this flagrant display of diversity?
Well wasn’t that odd. Either the SDMB suddenly disappeared for a few hours, or I did, or something. Folks, don’t keep prescribed medication where your computer can get at it, I guess.
At any rate, I merely wanted to tell kaylasdad99 that I didn’t mean to sound quite as arrogant and peremptory as, on rereading the post, it seems. I certainly don’t think that a word from me should be enough to close the debate,* I meant merely to express my conviction that in this case other rhetorical tools, such as sarcasm and name-calling, were actually appropriate. Essentially, I think you guys have been trying to persuade a puppy to quit piddling on the floor, and it was a relief to finally see Cervaise roll up the evening paper. That’s all.
You grossly exagerate my position in order to deride it. Okay. About the last part, I hope you are correct.
I already conceded to you on the first point. But the result could also be that they would adopt our history and heritage as part of their own, as many immigrants have done. ( I am not implying all Muslims are immigrants, I’m merely using them as example.)
You’re probably right here, but it is an unknown. We do not know what Ellison’s particular interpretation of the Koran is. We do not know the degree to which said interpretation may conflict with the Constitution. If there is conflict, we do not know if his devotion lies with his office or his faith. We do know he, as Keith E. Hakim (aka, Keith X Ellison; aka, Keith Ellison-Muhammad) wrote articles defending Farakahn against charges es of racism and suggesting the creation of a separate state for blacks. There are some interesting facts here.
Newsflash, Miller, advertising works. Why do you think billions and billions are spent on it each year? It is extremely powerful. Now if you’d like to make a move to exclude rubes and suckers from voting, that’s another discussion.
Well, we agree on that. But from what I’ve read and seen, it’s slanted the other way. Numerous times on these boards people on your side have provided quotes that are either incorrect or taken out of context. But like I said, we will not settle this here.
Because he is fabricating a lie. The implication is that this book was revered, or even respected, by Jefferson. Here is an article of Ellison crafting the lie: (emphasis mine)
He might be right that it contributed to Jefferson’s thinking, but not in the way he thinks. When Jefferson an Adams met with the Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain for the Dey of Algiers to see if they could put a stop to the taking of ships and klilling of men unless a tribute/ransom was paid. Jefferson and Adams later reported to congress that when asked why Muslims had so much hostility toward Americans, that the ambassador replied that Islam:
“was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
No doubt that this had an effect on Jefferson, as he argued for not paying any further tributes. And when he was President he went to war with them and, with the help of other countries, put an end to to the terrorism and blackmail. So, yes, I’m sure this book helped inform Jefferson’s thinking.
Unity requires a degree of conformity. We must all drive on the right side of the road, pay income taxes, tolerate that government institutions willl be closed during national hiolidays, noot sacrifice animals, etc… We are arguing over the degree of conformity.
Admitting and apologizing for perpetrating a lie would be a start; one that taints the reputation of one of our founders. He can then give an accurate accounting of Jefferson and the Muslims he finally went to war with. No further lies would be a good follow up. And when it comes to his office, he can cease injecting the Koran or his faith into it. And since he’s made such a big deal of it, he can open a dialogue and explain what parts of the Koran he adheres to and which parts he doesn’t. He can also repudiate CAIR and separate himself from the lying imams in the airport.
You get the idea. And before you respond “why should he do that, we don’t ask people who are Christian to do that”, let me answer, the religion of those who have killed thousands of Americans and hacve clearly expressed a willingness to add to that number were not Christians, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or Scientologists, they were Muslims.
Again, the fact that he injected the Koran into his tenure was a voluntary step that he took. In indicates that he feels more of a devotion to it than our country. Now may not necessarily be the case, but his action brings it into question. So let him explain himself.
And if you look at the link I provided or check him out on Wikipedia, you’ll see that he’s not as free of extremism as you might think.
So you’re finally deciding to tell the truth about your motivation. It’s not concern for national unity or American heritage. It’s a general bigotry against an entire religion. You could have just admitted that in your first post and saved us all 14 pages of trying to displace some of the hot air in you head with actual knowledge.
Wow, I guess it couldn’t have been overlooked. It’s not like that were invloved in something else. Look, I do grant that your interpretation might be correct, but when you look at all the information, which do you think is more likely? Given that a President had just been assissinated and Roosevelt had traveled through the night AND that he swore on a bible both before (as Governor of New York) and after (his first full term as President)—the same bible, in fact—strongly points that his not swearing on a bible was simply an accident of circumstance.
No, those who have killed the most Americans were fellow Christian Americans, in a Civil War.
One day, at the Battle of Antietam, September 17, 1862, was the bloodiest day in American history. That battle went on for at least 8 hours, and more Americans were killed every single hour than the entire 9/11 death toll. And they were killed by fellow Americans, nearly all Christian. And that was only one battle, in a war that went on for 5 years.
P.S. For that matter, I think more Muslims have been killed by fellow Muslims than by anyone else, in their various Sunni/Shiite fights over the proper successor to Mohammad, plus the various other battles over territory. And more British have been killed by other British, in their English War of the Roses, Religious wars, and wars between England/Wales/Scotland. This is probably true for most countries.
That would be the people who hold the position of Prager in a more virulent form, and are prepared to replace such American values as plura.lism, liberty, indulgence of the eccentric, mutual respect, with a doctrinaire attitude that they and they alone have the God-given right to determine what rules shall be law in this country. And their source is the one you feel should symbolize our natural heritage.
Magellan, I’m prepared to believe you to be an honest person of conservative tendencies and dismayed at how much hatred you attract. But frankly you do come close to parodying a Know-Nothing of ante bellum days.
I don’t think there’s a person here who doubts that what is left of Al Qaeda is a threat – how great a one, depends on how fanatic they are and what resources they have left. Very few people (on this board) believe that should justify any sort of response against Islam as a whole. (Hell, when Dubya sounds like a reasonable person compared to you, you really need to rething your stance!)
I believe in the Triune God of Christianity and need to follow the Great Commission – but nowhere in that is there any sense of use of force, coercion, or legislation to compel my fellow man to do as I do – in fact, in Jesus’s teachings it is quite the opposite. And for you to suggest that Americans of any belief or none be compelled to swear on the Bible is to turn it into an idol or a requirement for hypocrisy. It’s contrary to the principles America was founded on.
