Keith Ellison and the Jefferson Koran

Despite a cynical campaign by those who would establish a religious test for holding office in these United States, newly elected Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison will swear his oath of office tomorrow on the Koran.

The objections to allowing Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, to take the oath as he chooses were so absurd in character and contention that they could easily be dismissed as a sideshow. But it would be dangerous to do so. The fact is that there has for a number of years now been a concerted effort by sincere if misguided religious zealots and conservative political strategists who delight in exploiting fears of diversity to redefine the American experiment as a Christian religious endeavor.

History does not provide even a soft grounding for this fantasy. The Founders of the country were men and women of the Enlightenment who, while surely imperfect in their thoughts and deeds, wisely sought to burst the chains of what Thomas Jefferson referred to as "monkish ignorance and superstition." They revolted against the divine right of kings, rejected the construct of state-sponsored religion and wrote a Constitution that not only guaranteed freedom of religion but required that: "The Senators and Representatives...and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The controversy over Ellison's desire to swear his oath on a Koran, which had been stoked by conservative commentators initially, reached something of a fever pitch when Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode, an otherwise obscure Republican, declared in a letter to a constituent that "When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Qur'an in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Qur'an."

Goode made several television appearances during which he pushed this line, even after it was pointed out to him that Ellison was born in the United States and traced his family's roots in this country back at least to 1742.

Goode left no doubt about his disdain for Islam and for its practioners, declaring that "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped. The Ten Commandments and 'In God We Trust' are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Qur'an. My response was clear, 'As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Qur'an is not going to be on the wall of my office.'"

Predictably, Goode found a forum on Fox News, where he stood by his statements and said, without a hint of irony, that "I wish more people would take a stand and stand up for the principles on which this country was founded."

What made Goode's ignorance of those founding principles remarkable was the fact that he represents Virginia's Albemarle County, where Thomas Jefferson was born in 1743.

On Thursday, it will not be Virgil Goode who pays tribute to Jefferson.

It will be Keith Ellison.

The new Congressman from Minnesota will declare his loyalty to the Constitution while clutching a copy of the Koran that was once owned by Jefferson. One of many Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist texts that the author of the Declaration of Independence donated to the Library of Congress at its founding, the Jefferson Koran has been loaned to Ellison by the rare book and special collections division of the library.

This is not mere symbolism. Ellison understands the Jeffersonian impulse that underpins the American experiment.

"When I'm officially sworn in, I will do it the same exact way as every other Congressperson-elect who was sworn in," explains the Representative from Minneapolis. "We will all stand up and in unison lift our hand and swear to uphold that Constitution, and then later, in a private ceremony, of course I'll put my hand on a book that is the basis of my faith, which is Islam, and I think that this is a beauty--this is a wonderful thing for our country because Jewish members will put their hands on the Torah. Mormon members will put their hand on the Book of Mormon. Catholic members will put their hand on the book of their choice--and members that don't want to put their hand on any book are also fully free to do that. That's the American way.... I think the diversity of our country is a great strength. It's a good thing that we have people from all faiths and all cultures to come here."

Make no mistake, were Jefferson, Madison, George Mason or any of the other Virginians who put their hands to the task of forging an experiment in religious tolerance and liberty asked to choose between Virgil Goode and Keith Ellison, those advocates for a "wall of separation" between church and state would not hesitate to say that it is Ellison who should be sworn in. And Jefferson, who spoke and wrote so extensively about his interest in and respect for Islam, would surely be honored to know that Ellison's hand will rest on the Koran that an enlightened Founder bequeathed not just to the Library of Congress but to America.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by authors and historians Gore Vidal, Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn for its meticulous research into the intentions of the founders and embraced by activists for its groundbreaking arguments on behalf of presidential accountability. After reviewing recent books on impeachment, Rolling Stone political writer Tim Dickinson, writes in the latest issue of Mother Jones, "John Nichols' nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic, The Genius of Impeachment, stands apart. It concerns itself far less with the particulars of the legal case against Bush and Cheney, and instead combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the "heroic medicine" that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Comments (243)

1. I, for one, have no problem having him swear in on any book he chooses, as long as the oath to the Constitution is upheld and he to the oath held accountable as well, as should all congressman/women....

   I do wonder, if Thomas Jefferson would be allowed to live with the current crop of Muslim zealots in the ME were they to come and visit Jefferson, if he were alive today....this I believe is the underlying fear and not which book one uses..rather, given the past Muslim migration through out history one is hard pressed to find any peaceful examples....a case could be made of the same problem with the Christian migration, but there was an internal reformation in Christanity, which has helped and I believe is so desparately needed in Islam...a Reformation internaly...

   Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 3:43pm

2. Jesus, God- the two-legged abominations that the Republican Party clutches to it's breast. They're extras from a B-grade horror film.

   Posted by fromredbird at 01/03/2007 @ 3:45pm

3. What's invariably stunning about these people is the complete ignorance of America's founding principles that they display.

   Posted by fromredbird at 01/03/2007 @ 3:46pm

4. It is also my hope that this representative returns to the business of congress and doesn't spend the next 2 years "experiencing" this 15 min of fame....

   Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 3:53pm

5. "Jesus, God- the two-legged abominations that the Republican Party clutches to it's breast. They're extras from a B-grade horror film.

   Iknow, I know...kinda like Teddy Kennedy...ya know...?

   Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 3:54pm

6. but there was an internal reformation in Christanity, which has helped and I believe is so desparately needed in Islam

   So thats Americans we are over there killing Iraqis with bombs, getting rid of secular dictators who hunted down and elimintated Al Qaida in Iraq so that there was no such thing until George Bush started killing, burning fresh minted $100 bills by the crate, pouring blood on the fire. Raining white phosphorous, depleted uranium, napalm, cluster bombs from the sky. Building palaces that Saddam Husseins palaces would fit inside, telling lies to the American people...

   So Islam can become more like Christianity?

   If so, how come George Bush doesnt have the balls to add that justification for the disaster to his ever changing list?

   Posted by LiberalPride at 01/03/2007 @ 3:55pm

7. "What's invariably stunning about these people is the complete ignorance of America's founding principles that they display.

   Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/03/2007 @ 3:46pm"

   Good thing to know we have you around to 'splain things as how they should be, tho....

   Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 3:56pm

8. Liberal,

   Little early for happy hour, isn't it? Whats Bush got to do with the Koran and swearing in? Not even mentioned in the ....look, take a breath,...Islam needs a Reformation...simple as that....the rest of your post is....hash and rehashed anti Bush...

   this is not complicated and not all of life has a string to Bush...at least not in my circle...

   Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 3:59pm

9. It is also my hope that this representative returns to the business of congress and doesn't spend the next 2 years "experiencing" this 15 min of fame....

   Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/03/2007 @ 3:53pm | ignore this person

   you're talking about the congressman who started this absurd flap by criticizing the muslim congressman, I hope.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 4:09pm

10. The self proclaimed "defenders" of American civilization who object to Mr. Ellison using a Koran or taking his congressional seat have lost the right to call themselves Americans. They should leave the United States immediately and the first two to go should be Virgil Goode and Dennis Prager.

    Posted by HaroldF at 01/03/2007 @ 4:15pm

11. Will the majority of the Republicans have their hands on a stack of $100 bills when they swear in? That is after all, their "holy book."

    Posted by BlueTexan at 01/03/2007 @ 4:17pm

12. Jesus, God- the two-legged abominations that the Republican Party clutches to it's breast. They're extras from a B-grade horror film.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/03/2007 @ 3:45pm

    Iknow, I know...kinda like Teddy Kennedy...ya know...?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/03/2007 @ 3:54pm

    Ted Kennedy is devoid of any concept of the separation of church and state? Ted Kennedy is a chauvinistic ethnic baiter?

    This is MAASCH's strategy. To post comments that are so dimwitted that they cry out for a response. That's it. No more fiddling with the unignore button. Life is too short.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/03/2007 @ 4:19pm

13. "you're talking about the congressman who started this absurd flap by criticizing the muslim congressman, I hope.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF "

    Yes, both of them...it is a non issue.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 4:32pm

14. Teddy kennedy is also an abomination...or is he your hero? Probably.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 4:33pm

15. Teddy kennedy is also an abomination...or is he your hero? Probably.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 4:33pm

16. "To post comments that are so dimwitted that they cry out for a response. That's it.'

    OH, PLEASE REDFORBRAINS, PLEASE SHOW US THE WAY...SHOW US YOUR VISIONS, YOUR INSIGHTS, SHOW US HOW YOU ARE SO WISE AND THE REST OF SO DIM...OH PLEASE...IMPRESS US WITH YOU BEING YOU!!!!

    BETTER YET...PLEASE RUN FOR OFFICE WHERE MORE OF HAVE A CHANCE TO HEAR YOU AND VOTE FOR YOUR VIEWS...PLEASE...YOU HAVE OUT GROWN THE BLOG READ BY PEOPLE NUMBERING IN THE HUNDREDS.!!!!!!!

    ROW 1 SEAT 1...COMES WITH A FREE HAT WITH A PROPELLER ON TOP. A RED ONE.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 4:37pm

17. CPT made a stab at defending Virgil Goode a week or so again...interested to see if he does here.

    LVLIB probably will...start listing off the Cut&Paste "America is a Christian Nation" litany of quotes from Washington, Madison, et al, where they reference "God" (not "Jesus" oddly for "Christian nation founders"?!?!?!).

    Neither would be able to offer any reason why Ellison can't swear an oath on his own religious tome...atleast no legal or Constitutional reason.

    Also, I'm sure they'd support Goode on his "Keep them durn Muslims out of OUR country" immigration plan...and get stymied when you ask how it would have stopped Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, or Terry Nichols.

    Posted by Mask at 01/03/2007 @ 4:43pm

18. I do wonder, if Thomas Jefferson would be allowed to live with the current crop of Muslim zealots in the ME were they to come and visit Jefferson, if he were alive today....this I believe is the underlying fear and not which book one uses..rather, given the past Muslim migration through out history one is hard pressed to find any peaceful examples....a case could be made of the same problem with the Christian migration, but there was an internal reformation in Christanity, which has helped and I believe is so desparately needed in Islam...a Reformation internaly...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/03/2007 @ 3:43pm | ignore this person

    Actually, I think that the aforementioned TJ and the other Founders would be utterly unelectable in our current political milieu, and would do well to avoid being run out of town on a rail (either literally or figuratively).

    Sadly, the so-called 'christians' of our day would be at the forefront of the stonethrowers, instead of leaving the rocks on the ground, where they belong. And Karl Rove would be right there, egging them on.

    Posted by skeletonman at 01/03/2007 @ 4:44pm

19. Posted by MASK 01/03/2007 @ 4:43pm

    Well said.

    Posted by skeletonman at 01/03/2007 @ 4:48pm

20. Skel,

    You may be right, as I think the left would run them out...think "fairnes doctorine", tax policys of taxing labor...social programs galore....collapsing schools ...unions...I am sure the TJs and even Linciln would be impeached..

    Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 4:51pm

21. Posted by MASK 01/03/2007 @ 4:43pm

    Well said.

    Posted by skeletonman at 01/03/2007 @ 4:52pm

22. If a muslim swears an oath on the Bible, does it render his oath null and void (since he doesn't "believe" in the Bible)? I'm more comfortable with Ellison swearing on the Koran since it is more likely to have meaning to him. Like Maasch said, as long as he upholds the Constitution, it really shouldn't matter.

    Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 01/03/2007 @ 4:52pm | ignore this person

    are you really this stupid? muslims believe in the bible too. they call themselves people of the book, along with jews and christians. this sheds a new light on ALL your previous posts. I was arguing with that?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 4:58pm

23. "are you really this stupid? muslims believe in the bible too. they call themselves people of the book, along with jews and christians. this sheds a new light on ALL your previous posts. I was arguing with that?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/03/2007 @ 4:58pm

    Er, then he swearing in on the Bible should be ok?...if it is all the same belief system?

    Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 5:05pm

24. the Koran is dearer to the muslim than the bible, as he/she considers it to be god's final word.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 5:07pm

25. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/03/2007 @ 3:59pm | ignore this person

    Hey John,

    Are you that bored or are you simply carrying the water for Glenny Boy "I Have Muslim Friends But I truly Hate Muslims" Beck? Dude, the Crusades ended centuries ago.................

    Posted by POSEIDON at 01/03/2007 @ 5:13pm

26. How about if he takes his oath on the steps of a bank with a Burger King crown on his head and one hand upon the Daily Inquirer? Ryan Seacrest would take the oath and then the American Idol judges would rate the authenticity of his statement.

    Posted by chimichenga at 01/03/2007 @ 5:16pm

27. Er, then he swearing in on the Bible should be ok?.

    in the private swearing in, politicians have sworn on the bible, the constitution, or nothing at all. at the public swearing in no implements of any kind are used.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 5:17pm

28. Poseidon,

    Hey John,

    Are you that bored or are you simply carrying the water for Glenny Boy "I Have Muslim Friends But I truly Hate Muslims" Beck? Dude, the Crusades ended centuries ago.................

    I am not sure I understand the premise of your question...

    but I do think Islam itself needs a reformation, as did Christianity....enough with suicide martys on buses and kill the infidel comic characters...is my point..

    Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 5:27pm

29. Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 01/03/2007 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person

    (yawn)

    Posted by BlueTexan at 01/03/2007 @ 5:28pm

30. If a muslim swears an oath on the Bible, does it render his oath null and void (since he doesn't "believe" in the Bible)?

    the entire sentence is stupid, quote marks or not. there is no subtlety in your posts, that's in your imagination.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 5:34pm

31. Actually, I think that...TJ...would be utterly unelectable in our current political milieu, and would do well to avoid being run out of town on a rail (either literally or figuratively).

    Posted by SKELETONMAN 01/03/2007 @ 4:44pm

    Elliptical fun to allow me to be downright outraged.

    Quite honestly, the whole swearing thing is far too easy for my taste. I want contracts signed and notarized. If swearing is involved then I want precise a definition of what the people of the United States expect from such an act. And I want weekly performance evaluations to make certain that the terms of the contract are upheld.

    As for a book to swear on, make mine something by Carl Hiaasen. Or maybe something sweet like a Barbara Kingsolver novel. You know, something that actually attempts to address the world as it is.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/03/2007 @ 6:04pm

32. How about swearing in on the Constituiton itself?

    Posted by jeyepa at 01/03/2007 @ 6:05pm

33. Posted by JEYEPA 01/03/2007 @ 6:05pm

    See, by using a religious book, they can finish with the whole "So help me, God" thing, as if direct contact with the most produced book in history is a divine act or as if God helps or doesn't regardless what some cheerleader asks It to do.

    By using the Constitution, those doing the swearing will have their attachment to divinity withheld and will have to--Gasp!--finish by pleading, "So help me, Citizens of the United States", as if he/she wants our interference in the good work he/she is about to not do.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/03/2007 @ 6:12pm

34. John Maasch with his typical 5 posts on the front page of the thread, then disappearing, re-appearing to make 5 posts on the front page of the next thread. This guy has a robot script which checks the Nation website every 5 minutes for a new thread. This guy IS a robot script straight from George Bush Authoritarian talking points.com.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 01/03/2007 @ 6:25pm

35. Jesus said, swear not on ANYTHING - just tell the fuccken truth, just BE A MAN and just tell the fuccken truth.

    If you hate the bill of rights, 3 branches of government, and you dont think John Maasch makes enough money to deserve a tax cut - be a man be up front and JUST SAY SO. Dont take a God Dammn oath even on a role of toilet paper.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 01/03/2007 @ 6:31pm

36. Good point TJ, but I'd take it a step further: there should be no oath of office, no pledge of allegiance, no flag saluting. One does not commit oneself to the ideals this country was ostensibly founded on (civic participation, individual liberty, equality of opportunity), by reciting loyalty oaths - it smacks of fascism. Somehow patriotism in this country has become a religion called nationalism where a "Support the Troops" magnet on your pickup and flag genuflection are acceptable and even preferred substitutions for informed voting, civic service, public political discourse, and community involvement. Sincerity is a poor poor impersonation of truth. Let our representatives show their commitment to our ideals through their actions in office, not by "solemnly swearing" on anything.

    Posted by twocinc at 01/03/2007 @ 6:37pm

37. Watch as the venemous left embraces the Koran ( as they already have radical islam ) to satisfy their lustful hatred and war on Christianity! Just more factual evidence that liberalism is a mental disease that, left unchecked, causes the affected individual to become suicidal and turn on his/her own country! Ellison is scum! An oxygen-thief of the highest order who deserves no respect!

    Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2007 @ 7:06pm

38. TWOC....whatever! It's pretty clear that most liberals despise loyalty oaths or loyalty to anything other than their own selfish desires. Liberals are the most dis-loyal people on the planet ( see: Bill Clinton ). Loyalty, committment, accountability, personal responsibility, trust, honesty etc. are all bad words in the liberal handbook, which is why your last post is not surprising to me!

    Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2007 @ 7:16pm

39. Hi Barry,

    You do realize that Ellison was elected. Why do you hate our democracy so much?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/03/2007 @ 7:18pm

40. Loyalty: see Newt Gingrich. No see Rudy Giuliani. No see Mitt Romney to see what stance he will change today. No see John McCain who both supports and opposes gay civil unions as a once divorced man. Guess that leaves the GOP with Brownback as their candidate. Good luck with that.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/03/2007 @ 7:20pm

41. Did Barry post something? Ah yes, 4 comments since my last post, but I see only 2. I'm quite sure I'm not missing anything.

    Posted by twocinc at 01/03/2007 @ 7:38pm

42. John Maasch with his typical 5 posts on the front page of the thread, then disappearing, re-appearing to make 5 posts on the front page of the next thread. This guy has a robot script which checks the Nation website every 5 minutes for a new thread. This guy IS a robot script straight from George Bush Authoritarian talking points.com.

    Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 01/03/2007 @ 6:25pm | ignore this person

    has ever a man been more misunderstood?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 7:48pm

43. Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain are all hypocrites in my book, as is most of the Republican leadership! That's why I left the party and am now an Independant ( conservative independant )! Nevertheless, liberals are the cause of most of our problems, they have no souls, no conviction, no moral compass, no value system ( unless you call defending pedophiles, murderers, racists, and terrorists a value system ). They live off of race-baiting and Christian/white male hating and that's all they got! Pure scum in my book! The republicans, as low as they have become, still hold the higher ground...which ain't sayin' much!

    Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2007 @ 7:57pm

44. To show the hypocrisy of mentally deranged liberals, i'd like to ask a couple of questions and see if any of you lunatics have the balls to answer DIRECTLY without spinning in typical liberal fashion! Does it bother you that William Jefferson was found with MARKED bills totalling $ 90,000 from an FBI sting and yet, not only hasn't he been arrested or kicked out of office ( or even criticized by the MSM ), he was re-elected by the MORONIC left? If so, have you complained to anyone about this? How do you feel when adulterous, hooker-chasing, tax-dodging, convicted CRACKHEADS like Marion Barry represent your party and THEN get re-elected only to do it again? If neither of these issues bother you, then how can you justify any criticism for someone like Tom Delay or any other Republican? Step back and watch the spin !

    Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2007 @ 8:07pm

45. Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain are all hypocrites in my book, as am I.The republicans, as low as they have become, Pure scum in my book! Posted by BARRY25

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 8:09pm

46. Wow, that was clever! Wrong! as you can see, I keeps it real. I have very little respect for the R's, and unlike you loons, am not a cheerleader. It's just that the D's and the far-left are soooo absolutely despicable, that I have to hold the R's in just a slightly higher level of respect...which again, ain't sayin' much!

    Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2007 @ 8:25pm

47. Furthermore, unlike most R's and all liberal scum, i have always been faithful in both my friendships and relationships. I've never betrayed anyone, never been unfaithful, and never stole! i have , however, beat the shit out of liberal scum who got caught stealing from me in the past and if that's a sin, then i have sinned! Nevertheless, can any of you twerps say the same about yourselves? I thought not!

    Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2007 @ 8:29pm

48. "If you hate the bill of rights, 3 branches of government, and you dont think John Maasch makes enough money to deserve a tax cut - be a man be up front and JUST SAY SO. Dont take a God Dammn oath even on a role of toilet paper.

    DING DING DING

    You have enterd a numbered spot into the Kook section...row 3 seat 1...you are to be congradulated..you at least can count posts..very good, now go get a cookie and work on moving up to a better seat...you can do it..

    Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 8:29pm

49. God is a liberal.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/03/2007 @ 8:32pm

50. "God is a liberal."

    Just wait until He judges you.... :)

    Posted by john maasch at 01/03/2007 @ 8:33pm

51. Rese, thanks for saving us the torture of having to scroll though one of your full page diatribes. And acually, you're right on point with those lowlife/hypocritical Christian leaders who cheat on their wives among other things. You left out the Catholic church and it's acceptance/cover-up of pedophilia! That being said, Christianity is not the problem. It's the scum who give it a bad name. Now, again, as you can see, unlike lunatic liberals, i keeps it real. I criticize both sides! It's just that the left embraces lying, cheating, thieving, pedophilia ( see ACLU's defense of NAMBLA or Pelosi proudly marching with a weel known pedophile )terrorism, and racism! The R's at least ACt as if those things are wrong and they push policies to confront those issues not to defend them. You could say the R's are the slightly lesser of both evils!

    Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2007 @ 8:38pm

52. Jesus H. Christ! Why do we (OK, the USA) insist on having our elected officials place their hands on some old clap-trap nonsense literary text? Perhaps in the next round of inaugurations we can insist on more pleasing works of literature such as Ovid's METAMORPHOSES or Hesiod's THEOGONY. The fact that this poliitician has to use some symbolic version of his symbolic stuff (Jefferson's book) just as an attempt to short-curcuit the Crhistian right wing only reinforces the notion that all this swearing in matter, so help me god [sic], is so much prelude to so much impending bullshit. I long for the day when some politician gets sworn in while putting her/his hand on a copy of the Constitution of the United States and deletes the (not in the Constitution) "So Help Me God" nonsense. Now wouldn't that be a concept?

    Posted by smckenna at 01/03/2007 @ 8:42pm

53. Posted by BARRY25 01/03/2007 @ 8:38pm

    well hi there bar! we were just talking about how keith ellison will be sworn in with a koran and how that goode guy thinks thats unamerican. would you likesome vegan scones and green tea?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/03/2007 @ 8:49pm

54. Wow. How this thread so gotten so off-track. Geez, I think we need a friggin' cage match between a few of you guys.

    I don't care if this guy swears upon an Archie and Jughead comic. Actually, then he'll fall right in line with our government at large. Anyway, haven't we all learned that when people have to actually swear on something, often they'll just turn around and violate what he swore to (e.g., I will be faithful, I won't molest those in my flock, I will listen to my constituents)?!?

    Posted by NM Dem at 01/03/2007 @ 8:49pm

55. "God is a liberal."

    Just wait until He judges you.... :)

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/03/2007 @ 8:33pm

    Er, alpha-omega, all-knowing, omnipotent, ...etc., been there done that.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/03/2007 @ 8:57pm

56. .... getting rid of secular dictators..... Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 01/03/2007 @ 3:55pm

    Who showed his secularity by:

    Building grand mosques with Iraqi state funds.

    Favouring Christian churches such as the Baghdad Presbyterian Church with a (courtesy of "secular" Saddam) pipe organ*.

    Obliging many shiites who were seeking a grand entry into heaven. (Killin' shiites because they are shia (as well as political opponents) is hardly a proper secular pastime)

    Nailing "prostitutes" through their temples to their front doors for bringing disgrace to their religion.

    Lib you as the sample "intellectual" progressive on this site need a bit more schooling. Think the expression you were looking for was not, "secular" but capricious "plurality".

    ps. You are the unintended end product of the Reformation principle but there are harmful side effects with all good medicine. All John was asking for was that the Reformation principle of freedom of conscience, which becomes a pretty dangerous thing, when exercised as a public right in some Muslim regimes, become the norm in that religion. Pigs might fly you say but it's a nice dream.

    *Marilyn Borst, an Atlanta-based missions promoter, has made four visits to Iraq since 1998 in her role as a leader of Evangelicals for Middle East Under-standing. She notes that three Presbyterian churches are in or next to the northern and southern no-fly zones patrolled by American and British pilots.

    "I've heard the fighters there. I've heard the antiaircraft responses on the ground from the Iraqis. I've heard the air-raid warnings," Borst said. "So there is a great deal of fear."

    Saying they trust in God's providence, Iraq's Presbyterians are continuing with worship, Sunday school, and youth meetings inside their buildings. Christians say the Iraqi president makes inexpensive building materials available to churches, gives land, and has even provided pipe organs.

    "Far from repressing Christianity, the government of Iraq supports a multiplicity of religious expression, seeing this as a way of providing balance," Borst said.

    Some observers, however, think Saddam Hussein's support of Christian churches is partly propaganda and partly an effort to maintain allegiance to his military regime. Despite relative freedom for Christians, the U.S. State Department designated Iraq as a "country of particular concern" for severe violations of religious freedom.

    The State Department says the Iraqi regime, run by Sunni Muslims, "for decades has conducted a brutal campaign of murder, summary execution, arbitrary arrest, and protracted detention" against the majority Shi'ite Muslim population.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 01/03/2007 @ 9:42pm

57. Well, post up for 4-5 hours...and no CPT, RIO or LVLIBERTY defending Virgil Goode.

    Maybe even THEY recognize the guy's idiocy and how the political victory for it...went to Ellison.

    Posted by Mask at 01/03/2007 @ 9:50pm

58. The State Department says the Iraqi regime, run by Sunni Muslims, "for decades has conducted a brutal campaign of murder, summary execution, arbitrary arrest, and protracted detention" against the majority Shi'ite Muslim population.

    Posted by LRJONES4 01/03/2007 @ 9:42pm | ignore this person

    for the 20% to oppress the 60% for decades, there are a lot of the 60% who went along.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 10:18pm

59. Ovid's METAMORPHOSES

    banned by the Vatican for millennia. I don't know about the other book.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 10:20pm

60. "God is a liberal."

    Just wait until He judges you.... :)

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/03/2007 @ 8:33pm

    Judges us?

    He's going to welcome us back home again.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/03/2007 @ 10:20pm

61. Wow. How this thread so gotten so off-track. Geez, I think we need a friggin' cage match between a few of you guys.

    not enough bickering?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2007 @ 10:34pm

62. for the 20% to oppress the 60% for decades, there are a lot of the 60% who went along.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/03/2007 @ 10:18pm

    Seems a reasonable proposition. There is an interesting little undeveloped argument here. It is that Saddam's army in Iraq , of necessity, had a large proportion of shiites, yet there were no significant (?) defections to shia Iran in the 1980s war.

    With a little development and checking out of the data this could be honed into a nice attack on those who say we have installed a potential Iranian puppet government in Iraq. It probably could be shown that Iraqi nationality trumps Shia sectarianism, particularly in view of the greater (than the present government) reasons Saddam provided for the opposite to occur.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 01/03/2007 @ 10:40pm

63. man am i torn here...

    why the hell does anyone have to swear on anything but the constitution itself in a supposedly religious neutral government? if joe muslim wants to swear on a koran, so effin' what? stupid, bigotted cromwellian medievalist fundyvangelist freaks...

    that said...i really dont want yet another, even more radical, group of exclusionary, undemocratic, angry, medievalist, religionists trying to impose their morality on me or mine. look at europe. what a menace to centuries of hard earned freedom from such crap.

    islam is even less compatible with western enlightened democratic free speech ideals than christian fundyvangelism...

    trying to plant secular democracy in that hellhole known as the islamic middle east is futile. large numbers of islamics in a western civilized democracy is a menace to the liberties and rights of all non-islamics.

    look at europe...

    we so desperately need to get the hell out of the middle east and get off the black gold crack so we can STAY OUT of that violent, intolerant, religious fanatic infested, barbaric hellhole...our civilizations are simply incompatible and continued interaction will bring more violence and conflict than respectful distance.

    the islamic world needs to go ahead and errupt into hideous religious conflict, starting with a sunni/shia 30 years war, so the common islamic man (woman? not relevant in their world) will realize what a pile of festering crap THEIR intolerant, exclusionary religion-that-preaches-love-but-results-in-mass-murder is and move on...

    like what happened in europe that resulted in the men of the enlightenment, which resulted in rejection of politicized fanatical religion and the growth of a secular state in which anyone can worship or not as they please...

    no...i dont want a lot of muslim immigrants here. sorry...

    that said, home grown muslims raised and reared here,like ellison, generally understand "the deal"...

    i would have no problem with a deluge of asian zoroastrians, but i dont think that is going to happen...

    i hate that i feel this way. i have known many decent foriegn born muslims who "get it". i just dont want to fear for my life for excercising my right to free speech by a pack of angry, alien, religious fanatics who have no understanding of nor respect for our system.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/03/2007 @ 10:52pm

64. "God is a liberal."

    Just wait until He judges you.... :)

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/03/2007 @ 8:33pm

    Judges us?

    He's going to welcome us back home again.

    Posted by WILL C. 01/03/2007 @ 10:20pm

    Since God is omnipotent and omnipresent-- isn't 'home' everywhere?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/03/2007 @ 11:24pm

65. Since God is omnipotent and omnipresent-- isn't 'home' everywhere?

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/03/2007 @ 11:24pm

    His is. Ours extends to the limits of our skin

    death changes all that

    Posted by Will C. at 01/03/2007 @ 11:29pm

66. Since God is omnipotent and omnipresent-- isn't 'home' everywhere?

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/03/2007 @ 11:24pm

    His is. Ours extends to the limits of our skin

    death changes all that

    Posted by WILL C. 01/03/2007 @ 11:29pm

    So that's the point in living then to get beyond using only our senses? Perhaps it's really only about in using them perfectly... like listening to color, seeing sound, tasting thought,

    Funny how most 'major' religions have little to do with understanding God and more to do with understanding our place amongst each other, seems mostly about politics with a religious scarf around our necks or heads. How appropriate a discussion about swearing to do something to a God that supposedly already knows how it all ends up. Aren't really only swearing to each other.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/03/2007 @ 11:54pm

67. er, we

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/04/2007 @ 12:04am

68. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/03/2007 @ 11:54pm

    The mistake we continue to make is beleiving that what we know is all there is to know. God doesen't begin in genesis and end in revelation.

    limiting yourself to religion insures you will never know god... who is limitless

    Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2007 @ 12:05am

69. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/03/2007 @ 10:52pm

    I am going to have to go along with you on this 100%...You have summed it up for me..I was refering earlier to a Reformation in Islam(from the inside by muslims)(ie they need a Martin Luther of sorts to get them started, it is a process) and was vilified as anti muslim, but you have said it better...

    Posted by john maasch at 01/04/2007 @ 12:10am

70. I kind of like the idea of multi-verse as apposed to a universe. In the multi, one can move around from destiny to destiny in a totally different dimension transported by every decision or choice one makes shifting the outcome and making sense of the idea of 'choice'. Where in a uni-verse, having 'choice', is pretty much like nil considering one alpha-omega God lending one to the idea of predestination with reincarnation as an only out and infinity still moving in a straight line. Multiverse just feels a lot more healthier, like multigrain bread or just more liberal like God.

    Besides to swear on knowing God seems a lot like name dropping-- wouldn't you think?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/04/2007 @ 12:34am

71. Besides to swear on knowing God seems a lot like name dropping-- wouldn't you think?

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/04/2007 @ 12:34am

    The super gravity guys won the argument for multiple dementions and universes. So you are definitely on the right track.

    And that makes my point of the foolishness of being a slave to religion. You could never have engaged the idea you did and the super gravity guys would never have figured out the math.

    And we would be one step less closer to god

    Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2007 @ 12:44am

72. That's it! One of my best friends who is in the ARMY and has served 2 tours in Iraq among many other services to his country was in a Starbucks recently when he was accosted by some liberal oxygen thief ( imagine that, a loser liberal in a Starbucks, of all places, since liberals hate Corp. America..can anyone say hypocrite? )who made some very rude comments towards him ( he was wearing his uniform)! This little twerp disrespected my friend in front of the whole establishment because he was a member of the military! It's a good thing my buddy is so well trained that he didn't choke this little liberal bastard out! I call on all Americans, that if any of you witness this type of disrespect towards our military personell from the " we support our troops " liberals in this country, to knock the teeth out of these low-life mother-fuckers ( excuse my french, but I'm really hot right now ). For the sake of all low-life, sick, twisted, unappreciative, seditious liberals.....never disrespect a member of the military who affords you the freedom to act like the pathetic little cochroaches that you are unless you're ready to pay the price! I'm ready, and I can't wait, because if I witnessed what that little bitch said to my friend, I'd be in jail, and that little bitch would be gettin' his grill fixed!

    Posted by barry25 at 01/04/2007 @ 01:21am

73. Posted by MADLIB 01/04/2007 @ 03:34am

    barry is just absurd. i think he's a frat boy somewhere.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 07:22am

74. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/04/2007 @ 12:10am

    thanks - yeah i saw your post. got me thinking. i dont think we will see a martin luthor, but there are moderate movements throughout the islamic world, though the fanatics have the power...there is a hideous sunni/shia conflict brewing and we need to step aside.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 07:28am

75. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/04/2007 @ 12:19am

    So you oppose swearing on the Bible, too?

    Okay, that's fair.

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2007 @ 08:49am

76. "Does it bother you that William Jefferson was found with MARKED bills totalling $ 90,000 from an FBI sting and yet, not only hasn't he been arrested or kicked out of office ( or even criticized by the MSM ), he was re-elected by the MORONIC left?"

    Sure that bothers me, Barry. A lot of things about Congress bother me, but Keith Ellison swearing on the Koran isn't one of them, which happens to be the topic of this thread, remember? And as far as Jefferson goes, why don't you bring your complaints to his constituents, who, being washed in the blood of Huey Long, are used to that kind of thing. And while you're down there in Louisiana talking to them, maybe you could check in on how the Katrina recovery's going. You think you're the only one who's angry? At least those people have a reason; you, you strike me as just another knee-jerk know-nothing with nothing to offer but bile.

    Posted by wmlmiller at 01/04/2007 @ 08:51am

77. Posted by BARRY25 01/04/2007 @ 01:21am |

    i urge barry25 to join the military and go to iraq. or get some therapy...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 09:53am

78. "Does it bother you that William Jefferson was found with MARKED bills totalling $ 90,000 from an FBI sting and yet, not only hasn't he been arrested or kicked out of office ( or even criticized by the MSM ), he was re-elected by the MORONIC left?"

    Sure that bothers me, Barry. A lot of things about Congress bother me, but Keith Ellison swearing on the Koran isn't one of them, which happens to be the topic of this thread, remember? And as far as Jefferson goes, why don't you bring your complaints to his constituents, who, being washed in the blood of Huey Long, are used to that kind of thing. And while you're down there in Louisiana talking to them, maybe you could check in on how the Katrina recovery's going. You think you're the only one who's angry? At least those people have a reason; you, you strike me as just another knee-jerk know-nothing with nothing to offer but bile.

    Posted by wmlmiller at 01/04/2007 @ 10:05am

79. Posted by BLUETEXAN 01/03/2007 @ 4:17pm

    hehe. Truth hurts.

    Posted by TWOCINC 01/03/2007 @ 7:38pm

    you are missing the comic relief of an adolescent clueless moron. he likes to pull wings off of flies, and call himself a tough guy. But he won't fight for his country, now will you Barry IQ21?

    Posted by BARRY25 01/03/2007 @ 8:07pm

    Gee Barry, Jefferson has not been charged with anything yet. Does it bother me that he had cash stashed? Yes, but it bothers me more that so many republicans have been CONVICTED of graft.

    did you get fired from the Burger Hut again? Poor lil fella. Good thing mommy lets you live in the attic still.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 10:07am

80. 1, note that the official oath has no book at all. Scum goode is upset about a photo op session that has zero official meaning.

    2, T. Jefferson claimed that the Quran had a profound impact on the laws that the US adopted. GASP!

    3. the funny part is Scum goodes colleagues in his aisle wouldn't know what an oath meant if it bit them in their campaign funds.

    4. there shall be NO religious test for an office. Anybody that says somethig as stupid as "I voted for Bush because he is a good Christian" should get two elections off to think about their ant-American problems.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 10:16am

81. Dear BARRY-IQ.25,

    Thank you very much for the application that you submitted to the US Marine Corps (in crayon with some additional smears of feces, I am chagrined to add). However, it does not appear that we will be able to avail ourselves of your potential services to the corps given the presentation that you have made of your skill set. For example, in the "Special skills/training" section, you wrote: "I need to get some ass. Guys in uniform, they get piece of ass. Piece of ass! Piece of ass! I am tyred of my friend the sheep. Ba ba ba". We are also concerned at the description of your previous work experience -- it reads "Pimped/managed porn career for little half-sister" -- and we have elected to contact your local authorities in California for further investigation of the matter.

    Best Regards, The CPT

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 10:18am

82. sure wish I could bump into Barry outside his school, it would be funny to see all the other kids holding his beanie over his head while he whines "c'mon guys, gimme me my hat. C'mon, stop it, I'm going to miss the short bus"

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 10:18am

83. It's much ado about nothing. Ellison's just a poser. He needs a name change in order to get some real Islamic cred.

    Posted by woodyee at 01/04/2007 @ 10:26am

84. cuz Barry is around...

    Edison Misla Aldarondo, Republican legislator, was sentenced to 13 years in prison for molestation of his daughter and her friend for eight-year period starting when they were 9

    Randal David Ankeney, Republican activist, arrested on suspicion of sexual assault on a child with force. He faces 6 charges related to getting a 13-year-old girl stoned on pot and then having sex with her

    Bob Barr, Republican Congressman from Georgia. Sponsored the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, saying "The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit." Was married three times. Paid for his second wife's abortion (she also suspected he was cheating on her). Failed to pay child support to the children of his first two wives and while married to his third and present wife was photographed licking whipped cream off of strippers at his inaugural party.

    Merrill Robert Barter, Republican County Commissioner, pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.(could have been Barry)

    Got your boxers on lil fella?

    This is from a couple of weeks ago, another fine Christian: Robert Hale, a Bible-toting father of 15 who calls himself Papa Pilgrim, became an anti-government celebrity in Alaska by driving a bulldozer across a national park that encircles his land.

    The Lord told him that using the bulldozer to clear 14 miles of derelict road through the park was a loving thing to do, Hale said in an interview three years ago.

    He pleaded no contest to multiple charges that he raped one of his daughters.

    God save us from his people.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 10:28am

85. Posted by WOODYEE 01/04/2007 @ 10:26am

    He could call himself George Bush, Savior of the Universe, Bringer of peace to the ME, spender unparalleled, Failed conservative.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 10:32am

86. CRABW,

    We know that the conservaCreep credo is "They love life life! We love death!"

    But it turns out the sick-o bastards do have some other forms of "love" to spread, as you have documented once again ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 10:33am

87. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR200612 2600847.html?nav=rss_print/asection

    gotta love this stuff. Poppa Pilgrim. Hehe. Barry's real dad? Not the one he calls "uncle" in public.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 10:34am

88. Posted by GLENN LEMON 01/04/2007 @ 10:33am

    family values means different things to different people. "keep it in the family" incest is best, relatively speaking"

    How ya been, Glenn? Miss you around here.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 10:36am

89. It's much ado about nothing. Ellison's just a poser. He needs a name change in order to get some real Islamic cred.

    Posted by WOODYEE 01/04/2007 @ 10:26am | ignore this person

    sure, blame the victim of the smear.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 10:38am

90. I agree with the poster(s) who reminded us of the applicability of the first commandment of the decalogue's prohibition against idolatry in the "swearing in" ceremonies, private or public.

    Conceding to the mass of people's urgent desire for observable/apparent truths, most of us behaviorally accommodate to the exigencies of societal rites. What's the adage? Something like: hypocrisy is the tribute piety pays to virtue.

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/04/2007 @ 10:46am

91. CRABW,

    I have been living large. Hope you have been as well! And props to you for manning battle stations against the various creeps and low-life Bush-supporting failures who are trying to drag normal people down to their abysmal level.

    I did get some real belly laughs yesterday at the expense of someone else's feverishly out-of-hand psychosis in reading LOVE LIBERTY's invention of "god" -- a "god" who is an even bigger raving asshole than LOVE LIBERTY himself! A "god" wants to kill uis all! Strange how all that works with regard to the inventor and his invention ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 10:48am

92. I would like to announce my new "no twits" policy. no matter how dull things get around here, there will no longer be any dialogue with nuts and creeps like Barry, Rio et al. marginal cases like Mask and liberty will be addressed on an ad hoc basis, though every effort will be made to ignore their more absurd posits. thank you for your attention.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 11:00am

93. Instead of indulging in name-calling by labelling Keith Ellison's opponents "cynical" and "foolish", you would do well to deal with the real issues. This whole business began with Denis Prager's ill considered call to pressure Ellison to take his oath on the Bible instead of the Prager's misguided call diverted attention from the real problem which is the fundamental difference between the values represented in the Koran and the values represented in our Constitution. Prager said that he was not attacking the Koran and that there is no American hostility to the Koran. Well, if Americans knew what was in the Koran, there would be plenty of hostility to the Koran because the Koran contains all manner of calls to theocracy, violence, intolerance, Muslim supremacism and Muslim imperialism. Every American needs to be aware of this. Prager should have exposed the passages in the Koran which are in conflict with our values and with our Constitution -- and there are many such passages. It is not a coincidence that Muslim terrorists and the Muslim religious authorities who support them always quote the Koran to justify their murderous acts. In the Koran, among many other troubling passages, we read that non-Moslems are "the worst of creatures" (Surah 98:6) and the "worst of beasts" (Surah 8.55). We read: "Unbelievers are open enemies to you" (Surah 4:101). We read: "Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" (Surah 48:29). These are only some of the many passages in the Koran which contradict American values and the American Constitution. Yet, these are the principles which our new Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, is swearing by. Because the Koran and our Constitution are incompatible, Congressman Ellison cannot be loyal to both. It is logically impossible. The American public has a right to know where Ellison stands on the principles enunciated in the Koran which he considers holy. Someone should challenge Ellison to openly renounce and reject those specific passages in the Koran which contradict our Constitution and which call for contempt, hatred and intolerance towards non-Moslems.

    Posted by cgoldberg4 at 01/04/2007 @ 11:05am

94. I could care less what is in his hand, my concern is the racism and anti-semtisim in his heart.

    Posted by few at 01/04/2007 @ 11:15am

95. I could care less what is in his hand, my concern is the racism and anti-semtisim in his heart.

    Posted by FEW 01/04/2007 @ 11:15am | ignore this person

    have you seen any sign of that, or is your post just a smear?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 11:34am

96. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/04/2007 @ 11:00am

    More fun for me then.

    Posted by FEW 01/04/2007 @ 11:15am

    exactly what has Rep Ellison done to earn the "anti-semetic" label? other than win an election?

    Posted by CGOLDBERG4 01/04/2007 @ 11:05am |

    as opposed to the Bible, which condones slavery, brother-in-law marriage, polygamy, war and peace, not wearing cotton/wool blends, the killing of gay people and condemns shellfish and pork eating.

    whereas the const says no minorities shall be discriminated against. But it is just a "GD piece of paper". so says the POTUS.

    and where is the outrage over oaths taken on a Torah or book of Mormon?

    (Which brings up an interesting anecdote. While cleaning up my shop the other day I found a copper sheet with etchings on it. It was from God!! Its says "Peace on Earth, Goodwill Towards Men" as well as saying that I can Schtup any little girls I want. Cool, huh? I think I will form a religion around it, move out west and sell beer by subscription only)

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 11:35am

97. Posted by CGOLDBERG4 01/04/2007 @ 11:05am | ignore this person

    much of this kind of rhetoric is also in the old testament. let's keep religion out of the political sphere, let them believe what they wish. in other words, render unto Caesar....

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 11:35am

98. Children...if I were to remove the diatribe from most of your posts, there would not be much left. Christian's should know what the Bible teaches pertaining to the swearing of oaths, and as Americans... both Christians and Atheist's alike, should be aware the Constitution clearly states in Article VI there is to be no religious test for those elected to office.

    So Christians why is it some of you don't understand that "free of religion" means just that? NO GOVERNMENT ENDORSED RELIGION!!!!! Christianity or otherwise.

    So Atheisits why is it you don't understand that "freedom of religion" means just that? Not freedom FROM religion!!!! As many of you would like for it to mean , in order to support your anti Christian hostility.

    Bottom line, the elected official has the right to swear an oath on the Quaran if he so desires, as it is a protected Constitutional right. Yes I know this country was founded on Judeo/Christian fundamentals, and as a Christian I am very proud of that fact and am saddened to see our great nation abandon those principles. But just because I am a Christian does not mean I can't read the Constitution and understand what the founding fathers intended, nor does being a Christian some how disqualify my views because they are somehow tainted simply because I am a Christian.

    While Mr. Ellison swearing on the Quran may raise the hair on the neck of some, it is in line with our Constitution and therefore in line with the ideology of the founding Fathers.

    It seems there is quite a bit of intolerance being expressed from both camps. I find this very idiotic as intolerance is not upheld as a virtue by either the Constitution, or the teachings of Christ...so why is it so abundant in discussions like these?

    Posted by DanTampa at 01/04/2007 @ 11:38am

99. It seems there is quite a bit of intolerance being expressed from both camps. I find this very idiotic as intolerance is not upheld as a virtue by either the Constitution, or the teachings of Christ...so why is it so abundant in discussions like these?

    Posted by DANTAMPA 01/04/2007 @ 11:38am | ignore this person

    you seem to be pretty intolerant of atheists yourself. this "I'm a persecuted christian" rings hollow in a nation such as ours, which has a huge preference for christian enshrined in its culture.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 11:45am

100. why is it you don't understand that "freedom of religion" means just that? Not freedom FROM religion!!!!

     when you state freedom of religion, freedom from religion, if I so choose, is implicit. no religious test for public office too supports atheism as it proscribes the role of religion in our political society.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 11:48am

101. I think I will form a religion around it, move out west and sell beer by subscription only

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007

     Remember what the failed science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard said as he got the kernal of the idea that made him a rich bastard: "Relgion is where the big money is", or words to that effect.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 11:49am

102. Writing only for myself, I have zero problems with many christians. But the ones that use their particular blend to make laws that affect me, that i am intolerant of. You can practice whatever you wish in your church, temple, synagogue or yurt. And in your home. But when you bring it outside and tell me and my friends how to live according to YOUR interpretation of scripture, i will voice my displeasure. Especially when one religion claims The Truth over another made up religion.

     and if you think god gave Smith some gold tablets with marching orders. i will laugh all day. hehe.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 11:49am

103. Posted by GLENN LEMON 01/04/2007 @ 11:49am

     My friend Don says it better "Religion! Best scam ever, wish I had thought of it first".

     Tax exempt too. Neat.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 11:51am

104. I could care less what is in his hand, my concern is the racism and anti-semtisim in his heart.

     Posted by FEW 01/04/2007 @ 11:15am

     Wow, does this mean that Ellison is the black STROM THURMOND? That would mean he really desires white pussy from his plantation staff, stump speeches to RIO BRAVO's non-front-teeth-endowed family members notwithstandinging.

     Anyway, I can tolerate religious people, as liberalism demands of us, provided they do not give the hint of trying to ram there confession down my throat. So, if Ellison is some kind of religious fanatic, furnish the evidence here. What has he said? What has he done that indicates this? Show us the evidence. Tell us where you got it.

     And if you do not have any, it is clear who the ugly bigot who is pre-judging someone is: IT'S YOU, case closed. And worse still, if FEW is just pulling this from his bigoted ass, it is doubly gross for being couched in liberal cocnerns with anti-racism.

     It's up to you, FEW: the evidence, please ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 11:56am

105. Some of these recent posts convey a crass racism and reflect what is surely becoming an innate amalgam of distrust, ignorance, fear and revulsion of Muslims and their religion, though of course those who have hurled the previous (and preposterous) suspicions, theories and delusions will be the first to boast of the goodness, higher consciousness and elevated comprehension they possess as people of faith, not to mention their dedication to the enterprise of bringing peace and understanding to the world. No doubt some of the wowsers who scratched their faith-fueled worries earlier probably had no problem with someone like Diem, a Catholic, taking the helm in Vietnam, a country of Budhists. While this is a lousy analogy to Ellison's situation in the US, I only mention it to highlight the normal hypocrisy mouthed by today's Crusaders and their inability to admit that all they dream of is a monotheist, one-government world under a star-dappled firmament.

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2007 @ 11:57am

106. I could care less what is in his hand

     Posted by FEW 01/04/2007 @ 11:15am

     Isn't that what Hastert said about Rep Foley?

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 12:00pm

107. Because the Koran and our Constitution are incompatible, Congressman Ellison cannot be loyal to both.

     Posted by CGOLDBERG4 01/04/2007 @ 11:05am

     Joseph Lieberman has been a candidate in the general election for Vice President of the US as well as making a failed primary run for the top of the presidential ticket.

     Yet, his religion -- that he practices fervently -- forbids him from answering a telephone, riding in a car, or switching on a light or a computer on Saturday. I recall reading a shambolic account of one of Gore's attempts to contact him during the 200 campaign (in either J. Toobin or J.Tapper's book).

     Question: Is Lieberman's religion incompatible with any high office in the contemporary US?

     Do you have any theories as to why this question was not even asked, to my knowledge, during Lieberman's national campaigns -- when, if anything, his "different" confessional status was hailed as benchmark for American tolerance?

     Just wondering.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 12:04pm

108. Posted by CGOLDBERG4 01/04/2007 @ 11:05am

     Good idea...also throw in these comparisons of "holy text" and Constitution...

     Deuteronomy 15:12

     "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman be sold unto thee...."

     U.S. Constitution, 13th Amendment, Section 1-

     "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2007 @ 12:05pm

109. "The drive by the Christian right to take control of military chaplaincies, which now sees radical Christians holding roughly 50 percent of chaplaincy appointments in the armed services and service academies, is part of a much larger effort to politicize the military and law enforcement.

     During the past two years I traveled across the country to research and write the book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America." I repeatedly listened to radical preachers attack as corrupt and godless most American institutions, from federal agencies that provide housing and social welfare to public schools and the media. But there were two institutions that never came under attack--the military and law enforcement. While these preachers had no interest in communicating with local leaders of other faiths, or those in the community who did not subscribe to their call for a radical Christian state, they assiduously courted and flattered the military and police. They held special services and appreciation days for all four branches of the armed services and for various law enforcement agencies. They encouraged their young men and women to enlist or to join the police or state troopers. They sought out sympathetic military and police officials to attend church events where these officials were lauded and feted for their Christian probity and patriotism. They painted the war in Iraq not as an occupation but as an apocalyptic battle by Christians against Islam, a religion they regularly branded as "satanic." All this befits a movement whose final aesthetic is violence."

     Erik Prince, the secretive, mega-millionaire, right-wing Christian founder of Blackwater, the private security firm that has built a formidable mercenary force in Iraq, champions his company as a patriotic extension of the U.S. military."

     Dan Cooper, an undersecretary of veterans affairs, says in the video that his weekly prayer sessions are "more important than doing the job." Maj. Gen. Jack Catton says that his being an adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a "wonderful opportunity" to evangelize men and women setting defense policy. "My first priority is my faith," he says. "I think it's a huge impact.... You have many men and women who are seeking God's counsel and wisdom as they advise the chairman [of the Joint Chiefs] and the secretary of defense."

     Chris Hedges

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 12:06pm

110. "...bigot..."

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 12:11am

     LOVE,

     Is a gay person your equal in the eyes of your really pissed off god?

     "Yes" or "no" will suffice, no need for long-winded psychotic drivel and cut-and-pastes from whatever you can get your hands on.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 12:18pm

111. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 12:11am | ignore this person

     Speaking of "elevated dialogue", how long until anyone who doesn't sling accolades upon LL and his divine perspective are labeled "anti-LIBERTY"?

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2007 @ 12:20pm

112. CHIMI,

     Es claro que la mujer para alquilar ("esposa") de ODIO LA LIBERTAD no ejecuta su papel en la cama correctmente. Entonces, sus commentarios son más y más enfadado con todo el mundo y ... el crea que ... ¡el dios va a matar todo de la humanidad! Es verdad, ODIO lo dijo ayer y muchas otras veces tambíen.

     Sin embargo, si ODIO comprendará la forma de pedir a su mujerita ("Mumada paramí ahora -- ¡o voy a llamar la policía con respecto de tu 'carnet verde'!") el no va a tenir sus conflictos con toda la gente ... o con el dios ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 12:32pm

113. I could care less what is in his hand

     Posted by FEW 01/04/2007 @ 11:15am

     Isn't that what Hastert said about Rep Foley?

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007 @ 12:00am | ignore this person

     funniest post in this and many other days.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 12:32pm

114. Posted by GLENN LEMON 01/04/2007 @ 12:32am | ignore this person

     Warum das Spanisch? ich nix comprende das Spanish

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 12:35pm

115. Because the Koran and our Constitution are incompatible, Congressman Ellison cannot be loyal to both.

     Posted by CGOLDBERG4 01/04/2007 @ 11:05am

     this takes the cake for most idiotic post. he is not an Imam, he is a politician who happens to be a muslim. and Goldy happens to be a nutcase.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 12:39pm

116. JOHANNES,

     Vale, más o menos, he dicho:

     I was just saying that I don't think LOVIE is getting any from his third world rent-a-wife. And, that if he was smart, he would play the "green card" card to get a BJ. Maybe that would halt all of his grim, gloom and doom postings about how god is poised to kill all of us scumbags down here on earth since LOVIE does seem, shall we say, tightly wound ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 12:41pm

117. I can resist anything except temptation.

     alright smart guys, who said it?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 12:49pm

118. we repent of our sins and go in another direction allowing God to work in us so that we no longer yield to the temptations to sin.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 12:46am

     Is being gay a sin? Is inavading Iraq?

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 12:52pm

119. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 12:51am

     LOVE,

     Point taken, shall leave her out of it. My apology to you both.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 12:54pm

120. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 12:51am | ignore this person

     the mouse that roared?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 12:55pm

121. it's Froomkin time...

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 12:59pm

122. the mouse that roared?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/04/2007 @ 12:55am

     JOHANNES,

     LOVE made a reasonable and honorable request, so I will abide by it.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 1:00pm

123. Thank you

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 12:57am

     And thanks for accepting the apology. Sorry, again, that it was needed.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 1:03pm

124. actually told the truth about the WMD, we would not have had this war.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 1:00pm

     What do you know that UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, David Kay, among others, do not know? And how do you know it?

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 1:06pm

125. Posted by GLENN LEMON 01/04/2007 @ 1:00pm | ignore this person

     of course. but it can still be funny.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 1:11pm

126. Gay, yes in the same way as committing adultery or stealing, or lying. No more, no less.

     Libert, you fucking homophobic creep.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 1:12pm

127. Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007 @ 10:28am

     yeah - and who was the pub who talked about having sex with a mule? ahhh - mule sex...HYAH!!!!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 1:15pm

128. of course. but it can still be funny.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/04/2007 @ 1:11pm

     Yeah, I have indeed checked in here to have FUN with others and at some other's expense. But one also has to maintain the high ground as well on some matters and admit when one has made a mistake like a gratitious swipe at someone who is a non-combatant here. It's one of the behaviors (along with, say, knees that lock upright) that distinguishes us from the neo-cons ... !!!

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 1:19pm

129. evidently your religion is made up of homophobic creeps. the far bigger sin is demonizing other people for their sexual orientation. due to our new policy this will be the last reply to you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 1:22pm

130. Glenn, of course I respect you for apologizing, among other things.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 1:23pm

131. JOHANNES, LOVIE,

     Yes!!! Now respect this! Newsflash, 3 1/2 years too late, on the phony pretext for a depraved invasion, entitled:

     Britain never thought Saddam was threat - Diplomat

     Richard Norton-Taylor Saturday December 16, 2006 The Guardian

     The British government never believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to British interests and warned the US that toppling him would lead to "chaos", according to a Foreign Office diplomat closely involved in negotiations in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

     Damning repudiation of the government's public claims in the run-up to the war is contained in secret evidence to Lord Butler's committee on the abuse of intelligence over Iraq by Carne Ross, a diplomat at Britain's UN mission in New York.

     His evidence, in which he says the government privately assessed that Iraq possessed no significant quantity of weapons of mass destruction, has been published on the Commons foreign affairs committee website. Mr Ross gave evidence to the group last month but some MPs had been reluctant to have it published.

     Mr Ross told Lord Butler he read UK and US human and signals intelligence on Iraq every working day during the four years he spent in New York up to 2002, and spoke at length to UN weapons inspectors.

     "At no time did [the government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK," he told the Butler committee. "On the contrary, it was the commonly-held view among the officials dealing with Iraq that any threat had been effectively contained ... At the same time, we would frequently argue, when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

     Mr Ross continued: "There was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material. Aerial or satellite surveillance was unable to get under the roofs of Iraqi facilities. We therefore had to rely on inherently unreliable human sources."

     He added: "Iraq's ability to launch a WMD or any form of attack was very limited. There were approximately 12 or so unaccounted-for Scud missiles; Iraq's airforce was depleted to the point of total ineffectiveness; its army was but a pale shadow of its earlier might; there was no evidence of any connection with any terrorist organisation that might have planned an attack using Iraqi WMD."

     Mr Ross said he repeatedly questioned FO and Ministry of Defence officials about their threat assessments of Iraq. He said: "None told me that any new evidence had emerged to change our assessment; what had changed was the government's determination to present available evidence in a different light." Referring to the government's weapons adviser who later committed suicide, he added: "I discussed this at some length with David Kelly in late 2002, who agreed that the Number 10 WMD dossier was overstated".

     He said colleagues in other UN delegations told him the UK sold security council resolution 1441 - later used to help justify the invasion - "explicitly on the grounds that it did not represent authorisation for war".

     Mr Ross, who was responsible at the UK's UN mission for sanctions as well as weapons inspections, said he and his FO colleagues repeatedly attempted to get the UK and US to act more vigorously on the breaches.

     Mr Ross resigned from the FO in 2004.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 1:27pm

132. Posted by GLENN LEMON 01/04/2007 @ 1:27pm | ignore this person

     Blair has a lot to answer for. I suspect that Bush's crowd felt the same way. they all deserve the fate of the Enron gangsters, the judicial one of course.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 1:31pm

133. ¡A la gran puta! Looks like I missed some wild verbal battery here during my lunch break. Not that I'm one to judge those who go too far and injure the feelings of others (even CPT has a soft shell), but there's no need to bring Sra. LL into the fray. Besides, the bottomless well of fodder he furnishes for his antagonists along with his unshakeable desire to put up his dukes could keep any post here going into eternity. But I do have to say, he comprehends Spanish better than I thought, though I doubt he speaks or writes it very well because he's never once responded to my questions in Spanish, much less my assaults on his calls for Holy War.

     LL - El asunto no es tan delicado tio, relajate las carnitas... es otro pinche pedo.

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2007 @ 1:33pm

134. LVLIB, since you've joined us here on this thread....back on-topic-

     Do YOU have any problems with Rep. Ellison swearing in on a copy of the Qu'ran?

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2007 @ 1:35pm

135. Posted by CGOLDBERG4 01/04/2007 @ 11:05am |

     yeah...once i actually started reading the koran, i was shocked...then i thought, "well, no wonder..."

     i am naturally predisposed to live and let live. it seems islam is not...

     i will assume that the new representative takes his koran like many christians take less logical, more intolerant passages in the bible...with a grain of salt...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 1:45pm

136. Blair has a lot to answer for. I suspect that Bush's crowd felt the same way. they all deserve the fate of the Enron gangsters, the judicial one of course.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/04/2007 @ 1:31pm

     JOHANNES,

     Blair is, if anything, an even more collosal embarrassment than Bush whose whole, stunted life trajectory has been one of extraordinary privilege coupled with tawdry and feeble failure. Bush's exceptionally low ceiling demands that he should never be appointed Burger King shift manager as he would be laughably out of his depth. So, we cannot be wholly surprised at the magnitude of the mess that he is currently making.

     As for Blair, the latest scandelous event by this holy-rolling asshole was when he aborted an investigation that was getting results in a fraud scheme that implicated British arms firms. Blair claimed it would harm UK interests in the ME -- that apparently includes vitally supporting the Saud dictatorship, the nursery of al-Q and other madness.

     To repeat: Blair knew serious crimes have been comitted and openly aborted investigation and prosecution for purely POLITICAL reasons. Un-fucking-believable.

     UK GUARDIAN - 15 December 2006

     A major criminal investigation into alleged corruption by the arms company BAE Systems and its executives was stopped in its tracks yesterday when the prime minister claimed it would endanger Britain's security if the inquiry was allowed to continue.

     The remarkable intervention was announced by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, who took the decision to end the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into alleged bribes paid by the company to Saudi officials, after consulting cabinet colleagues.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 1:48pm

137. But I do have to say, he comprehends Spanish better than I thought, though I doubt he speaks or writes it very well because he's never once responded to my questions in Spanish ...

     Posted by CHIMICHENGA 01/04/2007 @ 1:33pm

     CHIMI,

     For the sake of the record: I actually translated from the original español for JOHANNES' benefit and only then did LOVIE take umbrage.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 1:52pm

138. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 1:48pm

     Just curious, given the "danger" posed by the Muslims in this country...as Rep. Goode noted as well.

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2007 @ 1:52pm

139. You got that from my post? Obviously reading with comprehension is not one of your stronger attributes.

     Posted by DanTampa at 01/04/2007 @ 1:55pm

140. He could call himself George Bush, Savior of the Universe, Bringer of peace to the ME, spender unparalleled, Failed conservative.

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007 @ 10:32am | ignore this person

     Too late. That one's taken.

     Posted by woodyee at 01/04/2007 @ 1:58pm

141. Ahhhh, yes. Looking back now I see the translation I missed upon my initial inspection of past posts. Either way, I take back my assumption about his degree of fluency, not only because of what you've just noted, but also seeing as how he didn't seem to undertand that "tio", the word for uncle, is slang for pal or dude in Spain. He responded to me using "sobrino" or nephew, which I imagine was a word he fetched out of kindness and uncertainty, for while Snoop Dogg may have made it cool to call strangers "nephew", in Spanish it doesn't fly unless you really are that person's uncle. No harm, no foul.

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2007 @ 1:59pm

142. sure, blame the victim of the smear.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/04/2007 @ 10:38am | ignore this person

     LMAO!

     Posted by woodyee at 01/04/2007 @ 1:59pm

143. you seem to be pretty intolerant of atheists yourself. this "I'm a persecuted christian" rings hollow in a nation such as ours, which has a huge preference for christian enshrined in its culture.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/04/2007 @ 11:45am | ignore this person

     You got all that from my post? Obviously reading with comprehension is not one of your stronger attributes.

     Posted by DanTampa at 01/04/2007 @ 2:01pm

144. JOHANNES, CHIMI, MASK and whomever else lurks out there:

     As I am exiting for now, I will leave it to you all to extract from LOVIE just where Saddam was hiding his WMDs (we'll just have to put aside other salient considerations for now, like the sophisticated delivery systems with which WMDs are launched, or the will to direct them at the USA).

     LOVIE insisted on the previous page that if Saddam had told the truth about these weapons, no invasion would have been necessary. He insists. So get LOVIE to make some oracular divinations about where the WMDs were/are, perhaps ouji-ing Donald "We know were they are" Dumsfeld, as necessary -- and memory-holing from existence the teams of professionals who actively examined Iraq for WMDs (also as necessary, to maintain the threadbare charade).

     Good luck in your mission.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/04/2007 @ 2:04pm

145. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 2:05pm

     So you'd support similar watch-dogging of ....anti-abortion groups, even conservative Christians....uh...given Eric Rudolph, right?

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2007 @ 2:07pm

146. JR,

     Get your emotions under control

     you were pretty emotional yourself here a moment ago.libert

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 2:28pm

147. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 2:13pm

     Cool....suppose they (or a spokesman for them) supported violence....like, oh, killing the President of Venezuela?

     FBI "hot list"?

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2007 @ 2:32pm

148. I can resist anything except temptation.

     alright smart guys, who said it?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/04/2007 @ 12:49am | ignore this person

     nothing, very disappointing.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 2:39pm

149. If we do not respect our gay fellow men and women and defend their dignity, it doesn't make us much of a person.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 3:06pm

150. I believe we are speaking of non religious or civil marriage here.

     "I have said before that I do not believe you can find a constitutional justification for civil unions between homosexuals."

     equal protection under the law. that's it.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 3:18pm

151. What does religion have to do with simply keeping ones word, when an elected official takes an oath? God and religion have nothing to do with the core of integrity, it is the intention and resultant evidence of person's actions that ultimately matter after all.

     Posted by Chris La Du at 01/04/2007 @ 3:28pm

152. so we're in agreement? nice

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 3:40pm

153. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/04/2007 @ 3:18pm | ignore this person

     I agree, but doubt your logic will have any influence on a champion of Comstockery like LL, escpecially on this issue.

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2007 @ 3:54pm

154. George Bush hugs upper crust Saudi sheiks, holds hands with them, kisses them, even the Bin Ladens got a free plane ride out of the country on 9/13/01 - he didnt torture them - didnt want to find out what ANY of the Bin Ladens knew about their brother. That liar just told us that God told him Osama didnt have anything to do with his family, and we are supposed to believe that.

     Posted by LiberalPride at 01/04/2007 @ 4:04pm

155. Further it's not even relevant because it has nothing to do with the US or US law.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 2:57pm

     So it's only "some kinds of violence" endorsed by a group....like say the ...Christian Coalition and its founder Pat Robertson....that you'd want investigated?

     link [mediamatters.org]

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2007 @ 4:11pm

156. LVLIBERTY.....you need to be more SPECIFIC...

     "So you'd support similar watch-dogging of ....anti-abortion groups, even conservative Christians....uh...given Eric Rudolph, right?

     Posted by MASK 01/04/2007 @ 2:07pm

     If they support violence

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 2:13pm"

     You forgot to add "IF it's relevant to groups or individuals who may commit violence in the United States."

     You didn't. See, I didn't realize that it's "okay" to "support violence" outside of the United States.

     Oh, and it IS about US law...or an Executive Order actually...EO 12333, signed by that noted appeaser Ronald Reagan, which reiterated earlier prosciptions against US assassination of foreign leaders.

     So it IS relevant to the US or US law.

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2007 @ 4:38pm

157. Oscar Wilde

     Posted by lewwelge at 01/04/2007 @ 6:26pm

158. Oscar Wilde

     Posted by LEWWELGE 01/04/2007 @ 6:26pm | ignore this person

     folks, we have a winner.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 6:30pm

159. History is so full of irony it's absolutely absorbing. I saw a play in Orlando almost ten years ago now about the great libertine wit Oscar Wilde. His Waterloo involved the Marquis de Queensbury. Yes, he of pugilistic "fair fighting" fame.

     Posted by lewwelge at 01/04/2007 @ 6:30pm

160. Yay! What's my prize?

     Posted by lewwelge at 01/04/2007 @ 6:31pm

161. I was a toddler in Deutschland and benefitted, I think, from learning English and German simultaneously. I've forgotten all but a few words, though. Usalo o Pedirlo, si?

     Posted by lewwelge at 01/04/2007 @ 6:34pm

162. See ya later Alligators! After a while Crocodiles!

     Posted by lewwelge at 01/04/2007 @ 6:35pm

163. Yay! What's my prize?

     Posted by LEWWELGE 01/04/2007 @ 6:31pm | ignore this person

     naches

     See ya later Alligators! After a while Crocodiles!

     Posted by LEWWELGE 01/04/2007 @ 6:35pm | ignore this person

     see ya soon, baboon

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 6:49pm

164. Libert, you fucking homophobic creep.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/04/2007 @ 1:12pm

     Still got me iggied for insisting that all human beings are animals, Johannes?

     Then someone please tell ol Jo that he can shove every request for civility he's ever made to me directly up his sanctimonious ass.

     Johannes, you are a fucking hypocritical creep.

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/04/2007 @ 6:58pm

165. Glenn, Chimi, and hell, everybody but BarryIQ 2.5 - -

     Good stuff, interesting and thought-provoking.

     I think swearing on the Constituion is a fine idea. I also LOVED the idea of weekly performance reviews (Crabwalk?)...

     Wonder how long it would take to find congresspersons doing a lackluster job for a full day's pay...

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/04/2007 @ 7:03pm

166. aww man, LEW, i just got home and you beat me to it..

     Jphannnesrolf is like a stream of bats piss.

     Python doing Wilde.

     he shines out like a shaft of gold, when all around is dark.

     ND, It causes me pain that my anonymous online friends that agree on so much cannot get along. I will heal, so don't worry your pretty head, but kumbaya dammit!

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 7:11pm

167. Posted by NEW DAWN 01/04/2007 @ 7:03pm

     Nope, weren't me. sounds like a good idea though. How about starting with a 5 day workweek? And a process for replacing a Senator that is near kohlrabi status.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 7:14pm

168. In the Koran, among many other troubling passages, we read that non-Moslems are "the worst of creatures" (Surah 98:6)

     . . . and the "worst of beasts" (Surah 8.55)

     We read: "Unbelievers are open enemies to you" (Surah 4:101)

     "Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" (Surah 48:29)

     Posted by CGOLDBERG4 01/04/2007 @ 11:05am

     98:6 Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.

     (note: "People of the Book" is a wellworn phrase in Islam. It refers to the three great monotheistic religions- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Obviously, the revelation refers to all unbelievers, whether "among" Jews, Christians, Muslims, or are Polytheists being the worst of creatures and going to hell. Identical to what Christianity teaches. It does not refer to NON-MUSLIMS. That is a hateful, scapegoating lie.)

     8:55 For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.

     (note: Those who do not believe in God are "the worst of beasts", NOT NON-MUSLIMS. Jews and Christians believe in God, for which Muslims praise and honor them as recipients of revelations from God. This does not refer to NON-MUSLIMS. That is a hateful, scapegoating lie.)

     4:101 When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.

     (note: This Surah simply warns the faithful to be fearful of unbelievers that may attack them and to shorten their prayers if necessary to avoid that. It is a hateful, scapegoating lie to pretend that this encourages active, hostile aggressiveness toward anyone who isn't Muslim.)

     48:29 Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward.

     (note: "Taurat" is the Torah. The fact that you ripped the word "Gospel" out of your quote indicates that you know what that is. To pretend that this Surah encourages "ruthlessness" (your twisted translation) toward Jews and Christians is a hateful, scapegoating lie.

     GOLDBERG, your entire post is, in point of fact, a hateful, scapegoating lie. You yourself are entirely guilty of the hatred you are trying to smear Muslims with by your hammer and tongs method of ripping words from the Quran without context and subjecting them to "translations" that are a lie.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/04/2007 @ 7:24pm

169. I could care less what is in his hand, my concern is the racism and anti-semtisim in his heart.

     Posted by FEW 01/04/2007 @ 11:15am

     Did your God tell you it was there or do you have some real world examples of it or do you just hate Muslims?

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/04/2007 @ 7:26pm

170. RE: Ellison and the Koran:

     It is a common misunderstanding to believe that the cruelties in the Bible are somehow equivalent to the cruelties in the Koran. They are not analogous for two reasons:

     1)Moslems believe that the Koran is the literal word of Allah; and therefore, no part of it may be ignored or overlooked. This is not true of the Bible. We speak, for example, of "The Five Books of Moses", not the "Five Books of God". We speak of "The Gospel of Matthew, Luke," et al. but not "The Gospel of God". This difference allows Jews and Christians much more flexibility than Moslems have. Christians and Jews can be devout Christians and Jews and reject the validity of those cruel passages. Moslems cannot do that because they are required to believe that the entire Koran is Allah's perfect word, immutable and valid for all of eternity. A respected religious Moslem website (islamicity.com) says: "To a degree almost incomprehensible in the West it (the Koran)shapes and colors broadly, specifically, and totally the thoughts, emotions, and values of the devout Muslim's life from birth to death. " Does this sound like totalitarianism??

     2)The cruel passages in the Bible are not universal with respect to non-believers. In the Koran, the cruelties are directed at all non-Moslems for all time. There is just no equivalent of this in the Bible.

     Three more examples will illustrate the differences. One of the Ten Commandments says: "Thou shalt not murder (or "kill")". There is nothing like that in the Koran. First of all, there is nothing equivalent in Islam to the Ten Commandments. Instead of the universal commandment "Thou shalt not kill", the Koran says: "It is unlawful for a believer to kill a non-believer, except by accident.(4:92)" See the difference?

     Second, where Christianity says "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto the Lord what is the Lord's", the Koran says that everything is for Allah. There is no distinction between religious and civil life in Islam. In fact, the concept of separation of state and religion is absolutely unIslamic. The same Islamicity.com website says: "Unlike Western legal systems, the shari'ah makes no distinction between religious and civil matters; it is the codification of God's Law, and it concerns itself with every aspect of social, political, economic, and religious life. Islamic law is thus different from any other legal system."

     Finally, Christianity says: "Go forth and preach the Gospel to every living creature." Islam says: "Make war on the unbelievers... (9:73; 66:9)" There is just nothing analogous to that in the Old or New Testaments.

     True, most Moslems have not read the Koran, and most do not follow the precepts of the Koran in their daily lives. Thank goodness! However, study of the Koran will always produce some very devout Moslems who will be influenced by the hatred, intolerance and violence towards non-believers which the Koran teaches.

     That is why someone needs to challenge Ellison on these and other specific passages in the Koran which contradict our Constitution. Maybe he rejects them, in which case he should say so; But, maybe he accepts them as Allah's literal word, in which case the rest of the country has a right to know that.

     This is not a religious test for office. It is a fully justified investigation of the moral and political principles which Ellison holds sacred. Every candidate should be examined on his or her moral and political principles. Even Moslems.

     cgoldberg4@cox.net

     Posted by cgoldberg4 at 01/04/2007 @ 7:29pm

171. and where is the outrage over oaths taken on a Torah or book of Mormon?

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007 @ 11:35am

     Interesting, isn't it, that the Islamic religion is "special" for some of the posters here?

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/04/2007 @ 7:29pm

172. I think I will form a religion around it, move out west and sell beer by subscription only

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007

     Remember what the failed science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard said as he got the kernal of the idea that made him a rich bastard: "Relgion is where the big money is", or words to that effect.

     Posted by GLENN LEMON 01/04/2007 @ 11:49am

     But those dopes didn't get any beer.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/04/2007 @ 7:32pm

173. Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007 @ 12:06am

     Praising the rants of an absurd anti-American, anti-Christian bigot like Christ Hedges does nothing to elevate dialogue.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 12:11am

     You're just anxious because he's exposing your anti-American conspiracy of heretical "Christian" moles.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/04/2007 @ 7:38pm

174. LOVE,

     Point taken, shall leave her out of it. My apology to you both.

     Posted by GLENN LEMON 01/04/2007 @ 12:54am

     Not that I love the LUVCHILD but I found that last a little disturbing myself and think you lost control of your rhetoric. I'm glad you were man enough to apologize without hesitation.

     Nor do I ever notice anyone else's family being slandered and attacked. I would never do so to anyone here and thankfully most bloggers here (right or left) have more decency than that.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 12:51am

     On the other hand I guess LUVVY is referring to every family other than the Clinton family.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/04/2007 @ 7:44pm

175. The Bible clearly states that God has ordained governments to execute justice on those who practice evil.

     If Saddam would have either left the country or actually told the truth about the WMD, we would not have had this war.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 1:00pm

     A country is evil because it's President doesn't get out of his country when a bigger country tells him to? And it's OK to kill 600,000+ residents of that country? You have one weird "religion". Why does your "religion" revolve around pain, misery, bloodshed, and murder? You are a nut.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/04/2007 @ 7:49pm

176. JR,

     Get your emotions under control and recognize the context. I was asked if being Gay was a sin, to which I stated yes as my faith has described. But you also ignore that I said it was the same as any other sin.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 1:18pm

     It is not evidence that a person has lost control of their emotions just because they recoil from a homophobic nut. It's a natural defensive response to someone who is dangerous to the rest of humanity.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/04/2007 @ 7:53pm

177. Isn't that the same as those you rightfully attack for asking Ellison to abandon his faith?

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 1:18pm

     They didn't ask him to abandon his faith. They just want to expel him from the country because he's a Muslim. Ellison, by the way, is NOT homophobic from what I've read.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/04/2007 @ 7:56pm

178. RE: Ellison and the Koran:

     It is a common misunderstanding to believe that the cruelties in the Bible are somehow equivalent to the cruelties in the Koran. They are not analogous for two reasons:

     1)Moslems believe that the Koran is the literal word of Allah; and therefore, no part of it may be ignored or overlooked. This is not true of the Bible. FALSE We speak, for example, of "The Five Books of Moses", not the "Five Books of God". We speak of "The Gospel of Matthew, Luke," et al. but not "The Gospel of God". This difference allows Jews and Christians much more flexibility than Moslems have. Christians and Jews can be devout Christians and Jews and reject the validity of those cruel passages. Moslems cannot do that because they are required to believe that the entire Koran is Allah's perfect word, immutable and valid for all of eternity. A respected religious Moslem website (islamicity.com) says: "To a degree almost incomprehensible in the West it (the Koran)shapes and colors broadly, specifically, and totally the thoughts, emotions, and values of the devout Muslim's life from birth to death. " Does this sound like totalitarianism?? No. It sounds like (the Koran) shapes and colors broadly, specifically, and totally the thoughts, emotions, and values of the devout Muslim's life from birth to death.

     2)The cruel passages in the Bible are not universal with respect to non-believers. In the Koran, the cruelties are directed at all non-Moslems for all time. FALSE There is just no equivalent of this in the Bible. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -St. Luke 19:27

     Three more examples will illustrate the differences. One of the Ten Commandments says: "Thou shalt not murder (or "kill")". There is nothing like that in the Koran. First of all, there is nothing equivalent in Islam to the Ten Commandments. Instead of the universal commandment "Thou shalt not kill", the Koran says: "It is unlawful for a believer to kill a non-believer, except by accident.(4:92)" See the difference? al-Quran, Surah 3:3-4: It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

     Second, where Christianity says "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto the Lord what is the Lord's", the Koran says that everything is for Allah. There is no distinction between religious and civil life in Islam. In fact, the concept of separation of state and religion is absolutely unIslamic. The same Islamicity.com website says: "Unlike Western legal systems, the shari'ah makes no distinction between religious and civil matters; it is the codification of God's Law, and it concerns itself with every aspect of social, political, economic, and religious life. Islamic law is thus different from any other legal system."

     Finally, Christianity says: "Go forth and preach the Gospel to every living creature." Islam says: "Make war on the unbelievers... (9:73; 66:9)" There is just nothing analogous to that in the Old or New Testaments. Christianity has engaged in just as many if not more religious wars than Islam. It certainly has slain more human beings.

     True, most Moslems have not read the Koran, and most do not follow the precepts of the Koran in their daily lives. Thank goodness! However, study of the Koran will always produce some very devout Moslems who will be influenced by the hatred, intolerance and violence towards non-believers which the Koran teaches.

     That is why someone needs to challenge Ellison on these and other specific passages in the Koran which contradict our Constitution. Maybe he rejects them, in which case he should say so; But, maybe he accepts them as Allah's literal word, in which case the rest of the country has a right to know that.

     This is not a religious test for office. It is a fully justified investigation of the moral and political principles which Ellison holds sacred. Every candidate should be examined on his or her moral and political principles. Even Moslems.

     cgoldberg4@cox.net

     Posted by CGOLDBERG4 01/04/2007 @ 7:29pm

     GOLDBERG, you are a hateful, scapegoating wretch. Your falsifications of the Quran, in just two posts, are already legion. You are seeking to take advantage of the ignorance of most about the history, reality, and context of the Quran to spread bigotry. Certainly a sad historical result if you are the sort of person I think you are.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/04/2007 @ 8:40pm

179. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/04/2007 @ 7:24pm |

     well, as a buddhist, i'm not one of the "people of the book", so i'm ok to be killed...

     i admire your effort to find something good in a bad religion, but bake me a yummy cake and sprinkle a little deadly poison in it and i still aint eating it. actually, even in contet i found those passages to not be nearly so harmful as you claim...

     Posted by CGOLDBERG4 01/04/2007 @ 7:29pm

     christianity is just more hypocritical and meely mouthed about its intolerance. both postulate a supernatural reality, completely unprovable, which others are expected to believe. and if they dare not believe...HELL HELL HELL.

     not behavior, not intention to do right, but some kind of spirtual contract and affirmation of belief or....HELL HELL HELL!

     what bullshit. an omnicompassionate, omniiscient god acts like this?

     more like boogyman bullshit to scare people into believing what scared shitless godaholics whose faith is so weak they need to force everyone else to believe what they believe, or at least say they do...

     the point is that if you believe this literalist crapthen logically the existance of reasonable articulate folk who disgree with your beliefs and dare express their beliefs is a mortal danger to the welfare of the souls of those an exclusionary religionist, christian or muslim, loves and cares for.

     fortunately many christians long ago witnessed the bloody results of such sugar coated wickedness and picked out the poisonous seeds of their religion.

     perhaps when enough muslims have suffered from their religion's bloody intolerance and propensity to violent proselytizing, they to will weed out the wickednes too...

     believe whatever you want, say whatever you dare...its your right. thats where islam becomes a threat to me, because thats not what they seem to believe, based on actions and words, not beliefs...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 8:46pm

180. harmless as you claim...oops

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 8:47pm

181. "You are definitely losing it. EO 12333 bans government sanctioned assassinations."

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 6:26pm

     "I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."---Pat Robertson

     Who is the "we" that Pat is talking about....the Red Cross?...MSNBC?....MicroSoft?

     You've lost it, LL. You KNOW what Robertson is talking about, violating the Government assassination ban and you've backed yourself in a corner with your previous comment about "supporting violence" groups.

     You COULD have walked it back or even stopped at the point where you started to defend Robertson, but you didn't...or couldn't.

     If "groups that endorse violence that violates US law" is your standard....Pat Robertson, leader of the 700 Club and founder of the Christian Coalition....met it in August of 2005.

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2007 @ 8:54pm

182. Goldy, he did not write the Koran. yours is a bigoted witch hunt. you have done nothing but expose yourself for the kind of person you are.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 8:57pm

183. HOLY WAR IS A RELIGIOUS DUTY

     In the words of the celebrated 14th century [Muslim] historian Ibn Khaldun himself: "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, says Ibn Khaldun, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations" (Muqaddimah, trans. Rosenthal, p. 183).

     Posted by cgoldberg4 at 01/04/2007 @ 9:12pm

184. Naches? You mean nachos? Jo, you're going to have to provide better incentives if you want greater involvement in your contests.

     Posted by lewwelge at 01/04/2007 @ 9:16pm

185. Lew, no I mean naches, a yiddish word for approval, praise. sorry that is all I am able to offer.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 9:27pm

186. Posted by CGOLDBERG4 01/04/2007 @ 9:12pm | ignore this person

     14th century? what were the christians doing in the 14th century? does the word inquisition ring a bell?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2007 @ 9:29pm

187. CGOLDBERG...you never answered my post.

     You said the Koran and the US Constitution were incompatible....

     is the Old Testament endorsement of slavery and the 13th Amendment compatible?

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2007 @ 9:34pm

188. for all islamic apologists...

     i really admire your fair minded compassionate defense of this religion with so many decent adherants worldwide, but i doubt you would be afforded the same defence by many of them.

     see things as they are, not as you want them to be...even if the reality is unpleasant.

     unless truth is hatred, i dont really see how GOLDBERG has spouted hatred at all. his sugarcoating of christianity was a bit disingenuine, but understandable.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 9:56pm

189. Posted by CGOLDBERG4 01/04/2007 @ 9:12pm |

     G4,

     What you soon learn here is that facts are devoid of commonly accepted meaning for the ideologues, when they have a set-in-stone view of any subject. My best guess is that Fromredbird, if not a paid publicist for Islam, is an Imam.

     The best way to deal with any perceived threat from those who take the Koran as a recipe book is to put your faith in the ultimate irreligiosity of the atheists. Eg.They know that Islam's preferred solution to gays is a sharp knife (males) and stoning (females). They will act once their male friends move from the bass to the soprano section of the choir and the ladies just disappear. So in the end they will deal with the Ellisons and worse if need be.

     Don't think the real problem is the Koran per se but those whose cultural norms are derived from the era of the Prophet. Our best bet is to corrupt the moderates and "sideline" the extremists.

     You are probably aware of the Muslim claim that God is monolingual and any translation of the Koran (including Jefferson's copy) is a blasphemy. So Ellison obviously is not your real deal extremist, for which all lovers of freedom can be truly thankful.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/04/2007 @ 10:04pm

190. That's why we call 'em the American Taliban, jonesey. Because they have so much in common with our Islamic fundie lunatics. Fear of Other seemingly being a constant within monotheism.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 10:12pm

191. Actually it seems to be a constant among mankind. It is just codified in monotheism.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 10:20pm

192. In the words of the celebrated 14th century [Muslim] historian Ibn Khaldun himself: "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, says Ibn Khaldun, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations" (Muqaddimah, trans. Rosenthal, p. 183).

     Posted by CGOLDBERG4 01/04/2007 @ 9:12pm

     GOLDBERG, you quote a 14th century HISTORIAN to validate your straining, deceptive effort to portray current day Islamic RELIGION as committed to conquering the "West" and forcing us to convert to their religion? I've already revealed the falsehood of your selective, hyperbolic, and plain mistranslated "quotes". You're the one who's trying to whip up holy war- of a religion other than yours against a third religion? You're a pitiful wretch.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/04/2007 @ 10:39pm

193. Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007 @ 10:20pm

     yeah - made sense back when most "others" really were probably dangerous...

     the only monotheistic religion (excluding all the rational modern offshoots of christianity) which does not preach some form of exclusionary irrationalism i have found is zoroastrianism. not too many of them left...were not "people of the book" and had the misfortune of being in the way of islam and not far away enough to eventually defend itself...like christianity.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 10:43pm

194. A good idea said in bad taste does not the law break. Neither he nor little old ladies listening to him constitute a threat to anyone. To make this analogy to groups who have threatened the United States is ludicrous.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 10:35pm | ig

     a good idea? exhorting people to murder is a good idea?

     nice...very nice...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 10:45pm

195. Trick question.

     How many here disagree with the following:

     Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure that they want to hear them.

     When in another's lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

     If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

     Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

     Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the person

     Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

     Do not harm little children.

     Do not kill non-human animals unless attacked or for your food.

     When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 10:57pm

196. Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007 @ 10:57pm |

     ok...i bight...

     1,2,6,7 and 8 sound reasonable to me...whats the deal?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 11:03pm

197. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 11:00pm

     ah...so "take him out" means like...a date?

     well thats not so bad at all...

     LL...you are making my case for me...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 11:06pm

198. "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it..."

     "nuff said Pat.

     And of course feminists and abortionists brought down the Towers, not fundies that hate feminists and abortionists. and Gays.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 11:08pm

199. ibble, I will answer tomorrow, if nobody else spills the beans.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 11:16pm

200. No fair doing research!

     Just answer what you think about the rules as listed. I did leave out two.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 11:19pm

201. Luvvy? Rio? Barry? Red?

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 11:20pm

202. sorry red, don't mean to lump you with the neo's. Just curious about your response.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2007 @ 11:21pm

203. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 11:00pm

     yeah...i can think of a few too, the mention of one of which would get me arrested by the secret service...

     "We have the ability to take him [Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez] out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

     "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

     "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than" blah blah blah...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 11:27pm

204. Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007 @ 11:16pm

     satanic bible?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 11:30pm

205. ivan levay?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2007 @ 11:42pm

206. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 10:35pm

     Probably won't return to this thread now that it's "old", but...

     You said you'd support the FBI investigating groups that "support violence"....and that was it. You didn't give it ANY clarifiers, caveats, or exceptions.

     Is there ANY twist of semantics you can come up with that saying "WE should 'take out' (i.e. assassinate) a national leader" is NOT...."supporting violence"?

     By the way, how DEEP into extremist Christianity does your apologism go?....would you defend ...Fred Phelps?....Gary North?....Christian Identity?

     Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 07:05am

207. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/04/2007 @ 11:00pm | ignore this person

     grr, kill, kill. Jesus wept.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2007 @ 08:02am

208. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/04/2007 @ 11:42pm

     cheater.

     No response from the warmongers? hurmmmm...I thought they would agree with most of the rules, they seem to match pretty good with their posted statements here .

     grrr. destroy.

     i guess Ghandi was just a schmuck like the Prince of Peace.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2007 @ 10:15am

209. ND, It causes me pain that my anonymous online friends that agree on so much cannot get along. I will heal, so don't worry your pretty head, but kumbaya dammit!

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007 @ 7:11pm | ignore this person

     Hey, it pains me, too.

     The only two people here "on my side" that I've ever really gotten into it with are Johannes and BlueTexan - both over the death penalty, incidentally - go figure.

     It pisses me off when someone (Johannes and Liberty come to mind - who'd have thought they'd ever share a sentence?) tries so desparately to portray themselves as giving and forgiving and understanding and open, then turns around and shows that they're exactly as irritable (and offensive) as anyone else. It's called hypocrisy, and I hate it, no matter who does it.

     Johanne's still trying to play off ignoring me because I typed the phrase "being civil with you isn't really my concern anymore" during a death penalty debate, NOT because I was actually being uncivil with him. When he calls Liberty a "fucking" anything, his outrage with me rings a little hollow, you know?

     Sigh.

     -------------

     Posted by NEW DAWN 01/04/2007 @ 7:03pm

     Nope, weren't me. sounds like a good idea though. How about starting with a 5 day workweek? And a process for replacing a Senator that is near kohlrabi status.

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007 @ 7:14pm

     Hell, yes! How about a 5-day, 40-hour work week, like most of the rest of the damned country. Hear, hear, Crab!

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/05/2007 @ 12:49pm

210. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 2:18pm

     I remind you...for the THIRD time....ALL you said was "groups that support violence". No caveats, no "Well, it's GOT to be violence against US citizens, in violation of US law", no exceptions noted.

     Oversight on your part?...okay. But interesting. Twice now, we've seen you defend Pat Robertson (once even subtlely comparing attacks on him to...attacks on Jesus "by the atheists").

     What IS it about ol' Marion Gordon that engenders your respect?

     How about a few more examples [en.wikipedia.org]?

     I'd especially like to hear your defenses of "Rev." Robertson on ...tacitly approving of Chinese forced abortion? support of Charles Taylor, a dictator and supporter of Al Queda? or Pat's claim that the US would suffer "no casualties" in Iraq?

     Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 2:29pm

211. Trick question.

     How many here disagree with the following:

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007 @ 10:57pm

     Luvvy? Rio? Barry? Red?

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007 @ 11:20pm

     sorry red, don't mean to lump you with the neo's. Just curious about your response.

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2007 @ 11:21pm

     I'm not sure if you're talking to me or someone else, but these are the only ones I disagree with:

     If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

     Seems perfunctory. I would put up with some annoyance before then asking someone to leave. If they refused I would attempt to eject them without being cruel and unmerciful.

     When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

     Skips over the options of flight and/or disablement or just putting up with the bother if it wasn't overly harmful.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/05/2007 @ 2:32pm

212. If he has suggested violence in the US, then he should probably be monitored.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 2:18pm

     Aren't you the one who said yesterday that you wanted to tear off the head of an American citizen and shove it up his ass?

     I've been warning others that you're dangerous and the characterization is accurate.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/05/2007 @ 2:36pm

213. That said, this is the last time I will say it in this debate; I agree with monitoring anyone, individuals or organizations on the left or right who advocate violence within the US against anyone living here, citizen or not, private or public persons.

     no free speech then?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2007 @ 3:24pm

214. From the Pat Robertson thread:

     Seriously.....Ol' "Marion Gordon" Robertson is good for a few laughs, but is he really relevant anymore?

     does ANYBODY (even LVLIB) really defend, much less listen to this wacko anymore?

     Posted by MASK 01/03/2007 @ 10:21am

     ````````````````````````````````

     On his statements regarding judgment on Americans or in Israel, Pat and I are in agreement. He is absolutely correct in making those pronouncements according to God's word.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 3:12pm

     Very perceptive MASK. How about some insightful forecasts for the 2008 election?

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/05/2007 @ 3:37pm

215. There is no law against US citizens recommending the death of anyone outside the United States.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 2:18pm

     What a weird "interpretation" of Christianity.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/05/2007 @ 3:38pm

216. A point...or two...

     Interesting....Pat supports China's right to force abortions, because it's an "internal matter"....yet wants the US to KILL Hugo Chavez, whose election (though I disagree with it) is an "internal matter" for Venezeula?

     now, why does Pat think that Venezuela electing Chavez should warrent our interference (i.e. KILLING the man)...but thinks that China can FORCEABLY "kill innocent babies" and we shouldn't take ANY punitive action against them?

     Next..."On his statements regarding judgment on Americans or in Israel, Pat and I are in agreement."

     So you AGREE with Pat when he said Ariel Sharon's stroke was "God's retribution" for plans to give land to the Palestinians?

     If so...did you ALSO agree with Pat and send an apology to the Sharon family later? ("On January 12, Robertson sent a letter to Sharon's son Omri, apologizing for his comments. In the letter, Robertson called Ariel Sharon a "kind, gracious and gentle man" who was "carrying an almost insurmountable burden of making decisions for his nation." He added that his "concern for the future safety of your nation led me to make remarks which I can now view in retrospect as inappropriate and insensitive in light of a national grief experienced because of your father's illness...I ask your forgiveness and the forgiveness of the people of Israel.")

     Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 3:43pm

217. "monitoring anyone gives me the creeps. free speech? I can stand in the square and shout "death to Bush." that speech is protected.I should not be "monitored because I avail myself of my rights.period.

     the FBI has proven itself to be so inept that their absence would hardly be missed.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2007 @ 3:51pm

218. Ol' Crabcake! Listen here, Chump-diddy! I find it laughable that a liberal lunatic like yourself would run to the predictable " he hasn't been charged with anything " card concerning William Jefferson! Being the pathetic little hypocritical jerk that you are, you forget that you have constantly stated that Bush LIED about WMD as if it were fact, yet he "heasn't been charged " with anything, there is absolutely no evidence that warrant's any charges etc. This is the perfect definition of hypocrisy! Now, in case you were unaware of the FACTS concerning that peice of shit Jefferson ( and there are many piece of shit/lowlife Republicans who have done as bad and even worse things than him, yet were never re-elected, so don't argue Jeffesons case by bring up Republican scum, cause i despise them too ), which is understandable given the fact that the MSM won't cover it, I'll educate you. $90,000 in MARKED bills from an FBI sting found in his fridge, DUMBASS! That's FAR more evidence than the had against DUKE Cunningham ( he should have gotten life ) and we all knew Cunningham was guilty from day one and NOBODY on the right defended, or wanted to re-elect this scumbag! As any rational human being can see, I am equally disgusted with both sides when they break the law or even show bad character. The problem I have with the lunatic left, is their inconsistency/hypocrisy concerning criticsm/condemnation of politicians who break the law! Now Crabcake, you've been schooled again, but i doubt it will affect you due to the proven fact ( see defense of Jefferson ) that you lack any values, principles, or soul! Son, give it up, I'm just too good!

     Posted by barry25 at 01/05/2007 @ 3:55pm

219. hardly be noted.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2007 @ 3:55pm

220. Very perceptive MASK. How about some insightful forecasts for the 2008 election?

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/05/2007 @ 3:37pm

     Uh, you'll either pronounce DOOM! DOOM! immediately post-Election Day....

     or gloat and claim that somehow "I LOST!" for a week because Dems won...then weeks after that pronounce DOOM! DOOM! and "They're no better than the Repubs!"

     sound pretty accurate?

     Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 4:12pm

221. Pat Robertson makes idiotic statemnets that give the left ammo against Christianity as a whole and I wish he'd stop, cause it's embarrasing, yet I agree that he should be condemned when making such ridiculous comments. on the other hand, the lunatic left that condemns this man daily, is predictably quiet when the Pres. of Iran, Cynthia McKinney's people, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton etc. make the same if not worse comments and are given a pass! Again, I condemn the actions of both sides, and the lunatic fringe...i mean left, doesn't! By the way, has Sharpton EVER apologized to those detectives that he destroyed by falsely charging them concerning Tawana Brawly? Nope. Has Jesse jackson apologized to the Duke players or to the Jews that he has insulted with racist rhetoric a number of times? Nope! Why don't you hypocrites criticize these 2 racists in the same way you go after Robertson?

     Posted by barry25 at 01/05/2007 @ 4:25pm

222. Of topic, but has anyone heard the usual terms we usually hear for months or years after the dem's lose an election. You know, Diebold, voter-fraud or dis-enfranchisement, voter intimidation etc. Funny, I haven't heard them since the election. What gives? Oh, that's right, the Dem's WON. Now I get it. So the terms we hear today are, " the people spoke ", " the people voted for change ", " it's a mandate " ( the lib's were furious when the R's used that one in 04' ). This is soooooo typical of the sore loser Dem's. The R's are disgusting but at least they aren't sore losers! Once again, I keeps it real and consistent!

     Posted by barry25 at 01/05/2007 @ 4:53pm

223. Pat Robertson makes idiotic statemnets that give the left ammo against Christianity as a whole and I wish he'd stop, cause it's embarrasing+BARRYHOTSHORTS

     But you show up here and do your little clown act?

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2007 @ 4:54pm

224. Posted by BARRY25 01/05/2007 @ 3:55pm

     hehe. Your a funny lil fella. Not intentionally of course.

     OK, lil fella, for the 4th and last time, maybe you will learn to read soon, I am a hypocrite. I make no bones about it. You are an idiot, and you make no bones about it.

     Andrew Buhr, Republican politician, former committeeman for Hadley Township Missouri, was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.

     Jim Bunn Congressman of Oregon: With his success due in great part to support from the Christian Coalition, Bunn won his congressional seat, then immediately ditched his wife (and mother of his five children), married a staffer, and put his new wife on the state payroll for the unheard-of salary of $97,500.

     at least I am not this bad of a hypocrite. And I never voted for Jefferson.

     are you still insisting chimpy never lied? Learn to read. Who do you dictate your messages to here anyway?

     "[t]he president answered yes" when a "reporter asked Bush if he wanted Cheney and Rumsfeld to remain through the end of his term." then he canned him 2 days later. I have more, if your mommy is around to read them to you Barry.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2007 @ 5:15pm

225. "We were never stay the course."

     BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

     BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

     BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We're just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

     BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course. [4/13/04]

     BUSH: And that's why we're going to stay the course in Iraq. And that's why when we say something in Iraq, we're going to do it. [4/16/04]

     BUSH: And so we've got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2007 @ 5:17pm

226. CHENEY: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq.

     Here's precisely what the Senate Intelligence Committee found:

     Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. [p. 109

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2007 @ 5:18pm

227. Sorry, Dick "drink and shoot" cheney was asked a question for that response.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2007 @ 5:23pm

228. Sorry, Dick "drink and shoot" cheney was asked a question for that response.

     Q: Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2007 @ 5:23pm

229. who asked about the mule sex guy?

     Neal Horsley has called for the arrest of all homosexuals. Admitted on the Fox News Radio's The Alan Colmes Show, that he's had sex with mules. Put photographs on his Web site of naked men engaging in homosexual acts and a nude woman engaging in bestiality amid shots of grotesquely maimed fetuses. Drug dealer convicted of possession of hashish with intent to sell. He calls for "the establishment of a new government, one that can obey God's plan for government."

     HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, man. I am such a low grade hypocrite, maybe I will stop admitting it. Pales in comparison to these guys. chuckle

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2007 @ 5:28pm

230. Crabcake, a that and...nothing. When you bring up the disgusting acts of Republicans, what are you trying to say? I didn't vote for them, wouldn't vote for them, and have NEVER defended them, psycho! Which get's me to my original point again. I use your DEFENSE of Jefferson ( " he wasn't charged with anything " ) as an example of your hypocrisy! You come back with the outrageous acts of some republicans that i have NEVER defended and actually openly condemn, and you act like your proving a point! Are you mentally ill? Now, as far as all your hogwash about Bush and Cheney, you still have no proof of any lying about WMD. ALL of those claims you cited were substantiated by foreign intelligence agencies, yet lunatics like yourself, want to act like Bush and Cheney made them up. It's just silly. Now, Bush has mis-spoken, is a horrible public speaker, a mediocre Pres. ( Bush and Clinton policies are much more alike than different, contrary to what the lunatic left propagandizes ) and wouldn't get my vote if he could run again because he's sold us out on ILLEGAL immigration and spending ( even though his tax cuts have caused an EXPLOSION/huge increase in federal tax revenues and the MSM ignores it). Nevertheless, 99% of the info./reasons for going into Iraq and the intelligence cited were given to us by the ....CLINTON administration and only those morons who started reading and watching the news AFTER 9/11 are the one's who think Bush made it up! It's kind of hard to make something up that the previous administration and media had been telling us since the early 90's. Get a grip, a life, and some medical/psychological help now, SON! You really should pay me for the education you are recieving but, I know....you liberals feel an education and everything else is a right! Pathetic twerps is what you liberals are!

     Posted by barry25 at 01/05/2007 @ 6:35pm

231. I really worked you over good, Son! Now, it's almost BEER:30. So, I'm gonna crack a cold one, do another Iraqi celebration dance to celebrate Saddam's death and the frustration of the seditious terrorist sympathizing left, and enjoy the fruits of my labor ( before the Dem's steal it from me with higher taxes )! Have a great weekend you loser liberals, but have some pride and do it on your own dime and not that of the taxpayers.

     Posted by barry25 at 01/05/2007 @ 6:40pm

232. You are probably aware of the Muslim claim that God is monolingual and any translation of the Koran (including Jefferson's copy) is a blasphemy.

     just like the bible. folks were burned to death for translating it. isn't christianity wonderful, such a distinguished history.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2007 @ 7:55pm

233. There is no law against US citizens recommending the death of anyone outside the United States.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 2:18pm

     What a weird "interpretation" of Christianity.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/05/2007 @ 3:38pm

     FromHamas,

     perhaps you are not aware that the US constitution is not part of Christianity? We were discussing US law. Perhaps you are acquainted with it?

     Although from your comments it does not appear to be so. But then knowing how much Hamas hates laws other than Sharia law, it is no surprise that you would confuse the issue.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 4:12pm

     You believe that when you discuss US law you are no longer a Christian and have no obligation to even attempt to behave like a Christian? Could this be called a theology of intermittence, so to speak? As in, for example, "when I want to curry praise and admiration I am a Christian but when I want to kill someone I am a not-Christian and am free to follow my carnal desires"? You've discussed your religious beliefs a lot in the last day or so and they are very interesting and convoluted. And, unquestionably nutty.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/05/2007 @ 8:04pm

234. Chavez on the other hand is preparing a mounting threat to the US.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 4:34pm

     By using oil revenues to provide flip-flops for every Venezuelan rather than depositing the money in Miami banks?

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/05/2007 @ 8:07pm

235. Sharon and now Olmert are in danger of incurring judgment from God in surrendering land to the Palestinians. Israel belongs to Israel and they risk God's wrath if they depart from that.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 4:34pm

     And the mortgage deed is the Bible? You are a religious war nut.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/05/2007 @ 8:09pm

236. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 4:34pm

     So you AGREE with Pat in his "ministerial" capacity (i.e. "Sharon got a stroke from God for talking about giving up land in Gaza, which was clearly marked as 'Israel' in Exodus 53:39")...

     but not his "personal" capacity, where he APOLOGIZED for saying that and said it was wrong?

     that about it???

     Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 8:23pm

237. You are probably aware of the Muslim claim that God is monolingual and any translation of the Koran (including Jefferson's copy) is a blasphemy.

     just like the bible. folks were burned to death for translating it. isn't christianity wonderful, such a distinguished history.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/05/2007 @ 7:55pm

     I don't know who wrote the above but it's completely false. First of all, there are three or four translations of the Quran into English by Muslims who are admired by Muslims for it. So it's false based on the prima facie evidence. Second, the Quran states several times that God revealed prophecies to the Jews and Christians and it obviously wasn't in Arabic. So much for the writer's claim that Muslims believe God is monolingual. Creepy and stupid.

     In reality Muslims do not think that the Quran can be properly and accurately understood by someone who does not read it in Arabic because it was revealed to Muhammad in Arabic. This is entirely rational. It is validated by the variations in translation that will occur in any translation of one language to another. As a point of fact, there are many more words in Arabic than English because it is an older language. There are some words in Arabic that have no equivalent in English.

     It is truly amazing the lengths that some people are going to nowadays in an effort to create, out of whole cloth, hatred and fear of Muslims. Their objective is a worldwide religious war although they prefer to cleverly describe it as a conflict between secularism and religion.

     Posted by fromredbird at 01/05/2007 @ 8:31pm

238. When was the last time anyone was bruned by Christians for translating the Bible? Yah, that's what I thought. Those days are long gone, contrary to what you nuts would like to believe! The only religion that is still burning people alive, chopping off heads of innocent people, calling for the deaths of non-believers and terrorizing the entire world is ISLAM! Now, not all of Islam is involved in these practices, but the vast majority of Islam is staying mysteriously quiet about the actions of radical Islam, which makes them complicit, in my eyes! So, left wing lunatics, you can spin it all you want, but the vast majority of Americans know the facts, and the facts state that Christianity is not what threatens this world, it is Islam that does. The 2 cannot be compared and those who try to are simply mentally ill, seditious twerps AKA LOSERS!

     Posted by barry25 at 01/05/2007 @ 8:49pm

239. enjoy the fruits of my labor

     Posted by BARRY25 01/05/2007 @ 6:40pm

     Brought some fries home, did you?

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2007 @ 9:10pm

240. Hey Barry, sweetie, where do you think your gas comes from?

     this is up for grabs, you should get it while the gettin's good.

     http://tinyurl.com/db7p6

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2007 @ 9:22pm

241. but the vast majority of Americans know the facts, and the facts state that Christianity is not what threatens this world, it is Islam that does.

     Posted by BARRY25 01/05/2007 @ 8:49pm

     Could you link me to that poll data...love to read it?

     Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 9:55pm

242. I admit, I haven't read all the comments, but I did not notice anyone discussing how curious it is that Ellison chose to use Thomas Jefferson's Koran, the Koran of a slaveholder. It is interesting how all writers, commentators, editors, etc. have glossed over this fact, by noting that the so-called founding fathers were not perfect but neglecting to list their blatant imperfections. I have lost some respect for Ellison for choosing to use the Koran belonging to a man who participated and profited from the trade in African human beings.

     Posted by shallhenry at 01/07/2007 @ 2:06pm

243. I appreciate "Shallhenry's" posting. Jefferson is in every sense of the word a founding father of our country, but not only in the positive sense. The same man who wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" also had a hand in creating a Constitution in which African-Americans were denied the vote and defined as three-fifths of a person -- for the purpose of inflating the electoral votes of slave states, so that the "peculiar institution" of the South, including Virginia, would be protected against Northern free states.

     So it makes all the more sense to me why Keith Ellison would choose to pledge his loyalty not only to the Constitution, which has been amended, thank God, but also to the Koran. Jefferson's religious tolerance belongs to his progressive side, but in our Constitution, we still see traces of Jefferson's reactionary side, above all in the infernal "electoral college," which should have been abolished and replaced with direct Presidential elections as soon as the Civil War was over.

     Above all, I appreciate Ellison's brilliance. His adversaries, caring nothing for consistency, attack affirmative action with the argument that it is "judicial activism" contrary to the will of the founding fathers, whom they worship as demigods as at the same time they claim that these were Christian fundamentalists like themselves, conveniently forgetting that they were mainly agnostics and freethinkers. In one stroke, Ellison punctured the founding myth of the so-called religious right with a piece of very solid evidence, while at the same time publicly affirming his own Muslim faith and his own commitment to the progressivism, not the reactionary racism, of Jefferson.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 01/08/2007 @ 09:48am