Hry, Liberal, is this a Type 1 or a Type 2?
Well this is rich. I find it more than a tad ironic that in a thread where I’m arguing vigilance against a religion that includes Sharia law, that you would choose to label me atavistic. If you intended that irony, it was genius. But since it would undermind your point and you didn’t, maybe the opposite of genius.
You have not argued vigilance against a religion that includes Sharia law.
You have argued condemnation and calumny against a person who happens to be an adherent of a religion, some of whose other adherents promote Sharia law–a misnomer in itself, as I noted some long number of posts ago, since Sharia is a general term identifying several separate judicial philosophies, including both restrictive and liberal applications to daily life. Of course, since facts are inimical to your thesis, what with pretending that we have maintained a tradition for which you can provide no evidence, I can see where you would need to ignore the reality behind Sharia and then use your distorted version to claim some sort of odd “vigilance” when uttering calumny against Representative Ellison.
Sigh. Frank, Frank, Frank, you poor thing, you. So nice of you to speak for the crowd, though. Well, I guess you’d have to, wouldn’t you, since your contribution to the thread has been limited to your usual snipes. Now look, man, you have that Mod label under your name, don’t you think you owe it to SDMB to make sure some of your offerings have a little meat to them? Sheeze, it’s embarrassing, kind of in a watching Dick Cavett try to dance with Raquel Welch (which if you haven’t seen it is worth the hunt) embarrassing. And then you go on to hurl the ultimate SDMB bugaboo :eek: : troll. Yeah, you qualified it with “essentially” to give yourself an out, but that just shows that you’re not really sure if I am a troll or your not sure what the word means (not great for a Mod). Or possibly—most likely—both. But I guess you did your best, so good for you.
Now this certainly got my attention. Kinda like “You have just won $1,000,000!” gets your attention. That is, for a second. Until you realize that it is untrue. I reckon the same will happen here. But hope springs eternal. In the meantime I will endeavor to find a way to survive without your snipes and other content-free posts? Fret not, friend, I *will *find a way to get by. [sniffle]
What? Have you been reading the same thread? Are you trying to use say that where Sharia law exists—and you know very well to what I am referring—is *not *part of Islam? Yes or no?
Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?
Read what i wrote. It is not that Sharia is not part of Islam, it is that
- There are multiple philosophies of Law under Islam that bear the name Sharia and that your bugaboo presumes a particular brand of it
and - more importantly, you have not been arguing vigilance against that particular legal philosophy, (although you have dragged a few ignorant claims into the discussion to bolster your primary concern), but that your primary concern has been to hurl ill-considered claims of insufficient loyalty to a non-existent tradition against a particular person.
Note my actual statement:
You have not argued vigilance against a religion, instead, you have argued hatred against a person, that includes Sharia law since Sharia law is a misnomer for only one of several different legal philosophies.
Wait. I thought you were arguing for american tradition?
The irony meter pegs when we also note you claim to argue against a religion you would say is bigoted and intolerant (by way of Sharia) by being bigoted and intolerant yourself.
What if we let the crowd speak for itself, then:
This goes on for about 11 more pages. I didn’t cherry pick these out of the thread-I honestly tried to find people that argued your side.
Sorry.
Oh, magpie. It’s not that a sadly too-early arrested state of psychosexual development doesn’t fit in with the rest of your fearful and myopic and egocentric worldview; it’s just that even I hoped you’d have sufficient dignity to keep hiding it.
At least, you could have had the sense to realize how pointing out the fact that Cervaise frequently has been complemented on the insight, reasoning and wit of his posts contrasts with, well, what happens every time you open your trap and stuff falls out.
Basically, people here are done with you, except as an exercise in fighting bigotry and shoddy reasoning, a lighthouse illuminating biased and bigoted sources of internet information, as target practice for everyone willing to acquire (or who already has) the smallest bit of knowledge on the topic, and as a scratching post for anyone who needs to beat up a loathsome but mostly inanimate and definitely insensate object.
Look at it this way: the most hotly contested issue of the last few pages has been between tomndebb and me, and the topic has been what kind of an ignorant bigot you are. If you truly cared about the issues, you’d just submit to dissection – the only open question anymore is, what the hell is wrong with him?
Since you’re only talking to others, not to me, I suppose I’ll have to do without an answer. It’s a shame that you can’t ignore your completely illusory attackers as well. Everyone would be a lot better off.
This may be my favorite post ever. Not only does a Mod come to the defense of Frank The Lightweight Mod who can’t back up anything thast comes out of his lightweight mouth, but he attempts to prove a point and quash a debate through an appeal to the masses.
Good stuff. On the Board self-tasked with fighting ignorance, really good.
If you think after reading this thread, or many others I have been involved in as the sole minority, that I give half a hoot about how many people disagree with me I can only assume you share some DNA with Frankie. If you had on your reality lenses you might have notticed that if I find the points compelling enough, that will change my position. I understand that that fact wouldn’t make for a good attack on me, so I understand why you crafted the post the way you did. :rolleyes:
In case you have not gotten the point to what you have been told for fifteen interminable pages:
[ol][li]Prager is an opportunistic asshole with a criminally divisive agenda.[/li][li]America is a pluralistic society, has been since Colonial days, and has, in general, no desire to change from that.[/li][li]There is no tradition to swearing in Congressmen on the Bible or any other symbol, never has been, and hence Ellison is not “breaking a tradition.” References to presidents, witnesses in lawcourts, and other oathtakers using a Bible are beside the point, as it is not the tradition for Congressmen.[/li][li]For someone who holds to the traditions of Christianity, using the Bible as a mere symbol is either idolatry or hypocrisy. (Prager and other “ceremonial deism” advocates being noted as exceptions.)[/li][li]Ellison is a member of a major world faith tradition expressed in a wide variety of ways – including liberal Americanism as well as Wahhabi fundamentalism. He differs from an Al Qaeda member at least as greatly as, say, I do from Fred Phelps.[/li][li]Shari’a is the discipline of Islamic canon law. It is not one monolithic school of thought, but at minimum five different, peacefully coexisting ones.[/li][li]Your stance on what “American culture” entails is shared by nobody posting here, liberal or conservative.[/li][li]American law exists both to give voice to the majority and to protect the minority from the “tyranny of the majority.” Even if it were a majority view that incoming Congressmen should swear on the Bible, that would not make it either (a) traditional, or (b) properly mandated Constitutionally.[/li][li]One standard element of American culture is that people have the freedom to believe as they choose, and, within certain legal limits, to act on those beliefs as they choose.[/li][li]The fact that the majority of Americans profess Christianity has little to do with what we espouse as American traditions – we respect freedom too much for that.[/ol][/li]
Cite? Fifteen pages worth of non-Magellan01 posts are my cite. 
Superbly summarized, Polycarp – though I doubt it will make any impression on the brick wall you’re addressing.
I think that I’m being forced, perhaps for the first time, to move a long-time poster from the “annoying and wrong but not a troll” column into the “major troll” column. There’s really not other explanation for magellan’s obstinate refusal to see reason, other than profound stupidity, and I’ve never taken him for stupid. Annoying. Very, very wrong-headed. But not profoundly stupid.
I don’t think Magellan is trolling. A real troll would have gotten bored long ago.
I guess the only explanation is that Magellan is terrified that America is on the brink of collapse. Our country is rotten to the core, and one more push will topple us over. And Americans are so decadent that we’ll gladly surrender our freedoms to the Ayatollahs, we’ll hand over the shell of our once-great country to the Caliph and convert en masse to Islam, and become a third-world backwater filled with Mexicans.
The election of a Muslim to congress is proof. This is just the first step in his mind. If we could somehow stop the tide here, maybe, just maybe, we’d have a chance to avoid the destruction of America. If we wait until two Muslims hold public office it will be much too late, since two Muslims in public office means that Sharia law is ineveitable. And three Muslims? Three Muslims would mean we might as well elect Osama bin Ladin president.
I suppose I did forget the “batshit insane” option…
The irony! It burns!
And then, of course, we will be eaten by bears. Can’t forget that bit.
Yeh! Polar bears, driven from the Arctic by global warming and roaming south in a desperate search for sustenance!
Maybe even… Muslim polar bears! :eek:
Nah, global warming is just another liberal/islamic/mexican plot to convince American women to forget their traditions, leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
People are lazy and apathetic, film at 11:00. Especially when there appears to be no recourse, in that he was already elected. I’ll be curious to see what happens the next time a Muslim runs, i.e., if he will be asked on what book he will swear upon?
Yes. Until he painted that lie of Jefferson. But even with that, he may still be a great guy/representative. My point has been vigilance (tomndebb’s absurd clam aside), not necessarily exclusion. If he is questioned on the matter and his answers are in conflict with the Constitution, then exclude him by voting for the other guy.
I though it was quite clear, but I don’t have the energy to go revisit that right now. If you feel it crucial, I will.
Jefferson never went to war with Britain. If you are referring to the result of the D of I, Britain was the aggressor, attempting to stifle the separation. And in 1776 the percent of Christians in the newly liberated colonies/nascent nation was, I’d guess, identical to that in Britain.
You may have forgotten that I conceded concerning the idea of mandating every congressman swear on the Bible. That takes care of the tolerance issue. But let’s ask him about those particular areas of his religion that may conflict with the Constitution. I don’t consider this a viloation of Article 6 as it does not deal with the person’s religion as a legal qualification.
This is simply a point of you being happy with the degredation of our history because it allows a society more of your liking to be built. There is no snark intended in that statement whatsoever. I am, by default, on the other side. So I do not receive the changes (degredation) of the cultural history we have the same way you do. You are free to celebrate them. Me, to fight against them.
Oh, the evil settlers carved out a society for themselves. Of course, the fact that this has happened everyplace else in the world, as well, is left out of the equation. Tsk, tsk.
But just because we are a conglomeration of many different cultures doesn’t mean that anything you add is, de facto, good. A good stew can, in fact, be made less good by adding things. And that brings us back to evaluating what we add. And that brings us back to vigilance.
But just because results may not show themselves quickly or with great contrast doesn’t mean that they may not be, in fact, negative.
I think you use too broad a brush here as to the Founders, but that’s another debate. The insult was the picture he painted. The evidence available so far points to the Koran being of only one benefit to Jefferson, that Islam, as was clarified for him by the ambassador to the Dey of Algiers, was batshit crazy. I do recognize, Miller, as per your point earlier, that this is not a settled point yet. As I said, I am looking further into the matter, but from the evidence I have so far, for Jefferson, Koran = Beware of Murderous Nuts.
And if his religion dictated that he hold an optional press conference, it would be a different issue. BUt you bring up a good point: what if his religion dictated that he pray 12 times a day, might not that interfere with him fulfilling his duties of office? If we kept out of office for that reason, would that be sensible?
Which Christians want you killed, Miller? Phelps and his crowd? Well, I have good news, none of his adherents are getting elected to anything. If one of the tries to run, I will go with you to press conferences and pepper him with questions to shed light on his (or her) hatefulness, ignorance, sheer stupidity, and to point out that that person is unfit to hold office because his beliefs are in direct conflict with the Constitution which his office requires he uphold. Is there another threat to you from Christians? Please, if there is I’d love to be aware of it. Now given the reason those Christians might want to kill you, are you really saying that you view death by them more than death for the same reason by adherents to Islam? If so, I strongly urge you to reconsider that proposition. Leaving sexual preference issues aside—or include them if you’d like—how many people have been killed in recent times by Christians? How many by Muslims? The number 3,000 comes to mind as an answer to that question. And that is just one of many incidents. Also, a fairer question would be to ask how many Americans have been killed by Christians in the name of Christianity?
As far as being wary of all politicians, agreed. But I don’t think that means that they all merit equal scrutiny.
That’s fine. I just wanted to point out that I could find no comment by him arguing for your position. Only that there were more important issues. But you have to go and be practical again.
Well, for one, I would like to hear his views on homosexual rights. I’d like to hear what he actually thinks about the issue. Is his opinion that of the Koran, which, as far as I understand, is quite harsh. As I stated since the beginning of my participation in this thread, I do not know enough about the Koran to be able to point to passages and determine which ones, specifically, might conflict with the Constitution. At one extreme we have the most barbaric strain of Sharia Law. I would like proof that someone separate themselves from those notions, and any other ideas that may be in conflict with the Constitution. Again, why is that not reasonable?
MUG?!!! No, I received no mug. But I am not surprised, it’s simply firther proof that this board discrimnates against people on the right. Thanks for bringing that to light.