Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Frank Pastore :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Muslim Civil Liberties Union?
by Frank Pastore
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


A few weeks ago, remember how we were all a buzz about Keith Ellison (D-MN) choosing to make his oath on the Koran as the first democratically-elected Muslim to sit in Congress? We all agreed it would be unconstitutional to prevent him from doing so (“no religious test,” Art. VI Sec. 3). Yet, something was deeply troubling about it even though we couldn’t quite put our finger on it.

Then, last Tuesday, this posting on the website of the North Carolina ACLU (here),

“A unanimous North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled this morning that the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina (ACLU-NC) can proceed with its lawsuit, filed against the State in July 2005, which chal-lenges North Carolina state courts’ practice of refusing to allow people of non-Christian faiths to swear re-ligious oaths using any text other than the Christian Bible.”

The lawsuit filed by the ACLU-NC in July 2005 seeks a court order clarifying that North Carolina’s existing statute governing religious oaths is broad enough to allow the use of multiple religious texts in addition to the Christian Bible. In the alternative, if the Court does not agree that the phrase “Holy Scriptures” in the North Carolina state statute must be read to permit texts such as the Quran, the Hebrew Bible and the Bhagavad-Gita in addition to the Christian Bible, then the ACLU-NC asks the Court to strike down the practice of allowing the use of any religious texts in the administration of religious oaths.

This lawsuit asks the Court for an interpretation of the phrase “Holy Scriptures” that is broad enough to include multiple religious texts.

The ACLU believes that all religious texts should be honored with the title “Holy Scriptures,” revealing their contempt for the Bible, and their total lack of appreciation to the set of Judeo-Christian values that gave birth to Western Civilization in general and America specifically. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, don’t they understand they saw at the log upon which they sit? Without those values there would be no ACLU. Ever heard of a CCLU, a Chinese Civil Liberties Union? Or a MCLU, a Muslim Civil Liberties Union?How does the Left express appreciation for the intellectual soil out of which they have grown? By declaring war on those values that gave them life. They commit intellectual patricide. When was the last time you heard of a Western Civ class in a public school that didn’t rail against all things Western?To return to the North Carolina case, the ACLU’s argument is essentially, “all or nothing.” Either accept all religious texts as “Holy Scriptures” or accept none of them as such. And if it’s the latter, then eliminate the practice all together. Either way they win.

Why stop at “religious texts”? Who is to say some whacko can’t create his own religion and choose to make an oath on a rock as his holy text? If the adjective “religious” would apply to everything, then it would apply to nothing. It would cease to have any meaning. Exactly what the Left has been after since the French Revolution, the utter irrelevance and meaninglessness of God, religion, and everything sacred.

Again, this is not about religion it is about values. Different religions obviously make different and often opposing reli-gious and theological claims, yet can share a common set of values. Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and I certainly have different views on whether Jesus was the Messiah, but we all share the same Judeo-Christian values. And, oddly enough, members of the same religion do in fact hold opposing value systems. Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo and I are all Christians, yet they hold to a value system foreign to me and most of my conservative Christian friends. This helps to explain why I feel much closer culturally and politically to Dennis and Michael than I do to Jim and Tony.

America specifically and the West generally are under attack by enemies both foreign and domestic. The Judeo-Christian values that gave birth to Western Civilization are under attack externally by Islam and internally by secularism. Strangely, both the Left and the Islamofascists function as two blades on a set of scissors, they are independent yet working to-gether, to shred the fabric of Western culture.

It was the genius of the founders to solve the church-state problem by intentionally forming a secular, rather than a Christian, government. They would confidently allow for religious pluralism, even atheism, and prohibit all religious tests, yet while at the same time promoting and sustaining the Judeo-Christian moral values that would limit that secularism by encouraging the practice of religion without the establishment of a state religion. It was all about sharing a common set of values, not about sharing a common religion.We have lost something when we no longer honor the Source of our values in our public rituals.

Americans are alarmed by the advance of Islam into our society, and properly so, for who will assimilate to whom? Could a Muslim have written the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution? Does Islam believe in the separation of church and state, that all men are created equal, that there should be no religious test for political office holders, that government ought to be secular?

Or lastly, would a Muslim Civil Liberties Union champion the right for a Christian to give an oath on the Bible?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Frank Pastore's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
reply: go Mommy go
Excuse me dear, but are you familiar with Salman Rushdie and his book inspired by Muhammad's first ethreal visitant of light. 'Satanic Verses' is closer to what Islam has always been about that your apologetic blog defending a religion of the world.

Hey! Even Satan likes the idea of having his own religion and Muhammad was the perfect tool to institute it. Prostylization by conquest is what Islam is about.

Swearing on the Quran
So what is next. Will the American Civil Liberty Soviet Union file a lawsuit letting Satanists swear on Anton Levay's Satanic Bible?

Since lefties are inspired by 'powers and principalities' it is safe to say that even toilet paper with some writing on it is sacrosant according to the ACLSU.

When and where does it all end? The diversity and pc crowd rule under the auspices of the peoples government that doesn't quite belong to us anymore.

Just Curious
About how many of my previous thirteen posts will be deleted by the PC police at TH.

Somebody Needs To Take These

"Porkers" to task.

Wrap 'em in green pig skins and leave them to dry whilst hanging from the lower limbs of the tree of Christianity.

What a WISH........since most of my fellow Christians are abject WIMPS.

ABJECT WIMPS.


AND, As A libertarian

(Notice libertarian with the small "L.") In spite of (or because of) libertarian ideals, I actively support aggressive interference with Moooooslims of any stripe - be they Arabs, Mexicans, Americans or Hippos.

I continue to grow fonder and fonder of them as targets of whim.

Has anybody asked the "Black Muslims" where they stand on Mohamadism?

The menial buttforker of little boys and girls?




And Lest Ye'all Think I'm A Dipshidd

I have a 145 IQ, love "Soul Food," love Liberty, and cain't stand Liberales.

Forkem all.

Even Janey.

And all the voting machines she rode in on......

Half My Damn In-Laws Are Libtards

Forkem anyway.

.357 wins the day.

Thank you, Father.

And yet
When it came to what would seem to be a much more straightforward case dealing with the First Commandments, Jefferson held that man has an unalienable right to worship no God or twenty Gods -- in other words a God-given unalienable right to break the First Commandment.

Somehow a novel understanding of the first commandment is invoked to persuade men to violate Romans 13, and but a straightforward example of breaking the first commandment we have no business basing our legal system on.

Those Whigs and their arguments....

The scissors analogy

A great analogy.

It is the values not a book that determine the goodness of a man. A person can swear all he/she wants but without values is it meaningless. Does he/she do what he/she said he will do? Does he practice what he preaches? These define the person.

Ed

Whigs and the 1st Commandment
Nevertheless, the first commandment was a major factor in convincing folks in the colonies that it was right to rebel against England, and monarchy.
It is therefore a basis in the founding of a "free" country.

Whig use of the Bible
"The first commandment (against idolatry) was actually the basis of the argument against inherited monarchy...."

And what a clever use of that text. On the surface, the first commandment would seem to serve a much better basis for limiting religious freedom and forbidding us from worshipping false Gods.

"7 months later, Jefferson and Franklin gave a new seal to the nation, Moses leading the Israelites through the Red Sea, with the motto 'Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God'."

Neither Jefferson nor Franklin were Christians who believed in the plenary inspiration of scripture. The Bible (and especially the OT) is wholly unconcerned with political or economic liberty. God didn't liberate the Jews to give them political or economic freedom but to put the Yoke of His law on them.

Arguably Jefferson's and Franklin's use of the biblical analogy constitutes an abuse of the Bible, a "radical rewrite" of the history of the Jews. It makes sense that they would do this because the Bible on the surface seems to outright forbid revolution. See Romans 13.

http://jonrowe.blogspot.com

To Reason
I agree, one can not debate religion. One either beieves and has faith or one doesn,t. There is really not much that is open for debate.

Whiny AND Loopy
I am convinced this is the most stupid "controversy" we have seen in a long, long time. Why is it that some on the Right (thankfully not a majority of the Right) insist that swearing an oath on the Bible is a way to "honor" it? Since when has this been the purpose of an oath? Christians may feel that the best way to demonstrate their resolve to keep an oath would be to swear it in the presence of the Bible. Expecting a non-Christian to do the same is not only loopy, but it ignores the entire point.

Please, there are so many legitimate issues to debate. This is absolutely not one of them. We need to stop the whining and concentrate on more important things.


Islam
WRH Bill writes
"I've cited Lewis's "Aboliton of Man" in which Lewis notes that many basic moral principles are shared in common between the Bible and many other sacred texts and traditions."

Yes, and interestingly enough, the Koran and Islam WEREN'T among those listed.

the 10 commandments and the founding
for those denying that the 10 commandments are the basis for Western (American) political thought:

sorry but your history is somewhat weak. The first commandment (against idolatry) was actually the basis of the argument against inherited monarchy, used first by Algernon Sidney in England in 1677, then taken up again by James Otis in 1764 in Boston. Thomas Paine's Common Sense used the argument against idolatry- 1/3 of the entire pamphlet was a diatribe against idolatry. (Yes I know Paine wasn't a Christian, but he knew his audience, and his rhetoric worked. It inflamed them)
7 months later, Jefferson and Franklin gave a new seal to the nation, Moses leading the Israelites through the Red Sea, with the motto "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God".
So, sorry, but there is no question that the Decalogue was a huge factor in the founding of America.

Guess who said the following
"It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world."

Hint it was one of our key Founding Fathers who believed that Muslims worshipped the same God as Jews and Christians and that the Muslim religion, indeed, virtually all world religions about which he was aware, were, like Christianity, valid paths to God.

For the answer, see my blog.

http://jonrowe.blogspot.com

Gotta Milk the Cows Every Day...
Bible never said not to work on Sunday or Sabbath.

Actually expected us to get the 'donkey' (got censored quoting a**) or ox out of the hole it fell in, on that day.

82nd Airborne & Catholicism
82nd Airborne, I believe Dottie is correct in saying your arguments against the Catholic tradition of praying to the Saints and to Mary are based on ignorance of the Catholic church.

Are you arguing that if you pray for a sick loved one, that your prayer is useless? If you think "of course not" then we can establish that we agree that praying is useful.

Have you ever asked someone you know to pray for something? Hasn't your Protestant Church asked members to pray for something or someone? Is this a useful thing to do? Again, I assume you answer "yes". We agree then it is useful for us to pray for someone or thing that someone else has asked us to.

If the prayer of a good man on earth is listened to by God and is worthwhile, why would the prayer of a soul already in heaven be worthless then? Rather, the wonder is how much more powerful might the prayer be, especially if they are a canonized soul who may have a closer relationship with God.

Every soul in heaven is a saint, not just the canonized ones. And by the original meaning of the word "saint" all Christians on earth are also members of the "communion of saints". So, when you ask your friend to pray on your behalf, you are doing nothing different than what a catholic does when he asks for a saint in heaven to pray on his behalf.

If someone asks you to pray for them, and you do, and you think that is a worthwhile thing, then you cannot say that a catholic or anyone asking a saint to do the same thing is not worthwhile. There is no difference, other than one soul is on earth and the other is in heaven. And if the one in heaven is a canonized soul by the Catholic Church, then this saint might possibly have a closer relationship with God than the soul does who is still on earth, so their "intercession" or prayers, might be more effective.

For example. By your handle I assume you are in the military. If a PFC talks directly to a General it is possible his wish might be granted. Then again, the PFC might be in a "bad state of grace" with the unit and his plea to the General might not have the results he desires. However, if the same PFC were to ask a Colonel to intercede on his behalf, and the Colonel talks to the General, it's possible the Colonel's plea (or prayer) might be more effective. I'm not saying there is a rank structure within the "communion of saints", I'm saying the canonized saints may have a closer relationship with God than you or I do, so their prayers may be more effective.

Don’t judge the Catholic Church without first studying it. I have been studying the Catholic Church since I first became interested in Christianity (for those of you who read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, I was standing in the metaphorical hallway looking at all the doors), I decided to begin my study with the original Apostles and the church they formed. I have not studied yet in detail why the German priest Martin Luther broke off from the Catholic church and established the Lutheran church or why other Protestant churches later formed as well. I don’t know in detail why the Orthodox church split form the Catholic church, or what they or the various Protestant churches believe and how it differs from the Catholic church and each other. I am not judging them until I learn why they split and decide for myself which one is the truest to Christ’s original intent. Until I learn that I will practice my faith according to the original church. If I learn one of the others is in fact closer to Christ’s original intent I’ll switch. But, it will not mean the others are “wrong”. They are merely different solutions. The only wrong church is one that leads you away from Christ. If they all lead to the same objective, and reach it, though portions of each may be off from what Christ originally intended, they are all effective solutions.

Out here.

p.s. to make sure I didn't say something about the Catholic Church that was in error, especially about prayer and saints, I checked what I wrote against the following reference:

Trese, L.J. (2005). The Faith Explained (3rd ed.). New York: Scepter Publishers.


Primus54...
Wolves asking asinine questions? Gotta love that :-)

All utahnotmormon was asking was "a statement that supports that the the 10 Commandments were the foundational basis for their [the founder's] conclusions".

I find it a bit rich that you and Lynne refuse to answer this simple request (great scholars of history that you obviously are) and instead ask UNM to read the entire archive until he finds a statement that agrees with your position, like those professors who love to leave edifying exercises for their students.

To quote Lynne: "The difference is that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian VALUES, which do not include Islamic values."

This is an affirmative statement, which you should be able to back up with some excerpts from the federalist papers etc. You have not done so; UNM and I noted that and simply asked for some evidence. Any evidence should point specifically to "[judeo-]christian values", which are not to be found also in the other great religions such as hiduism and islam. Otherwise, I would be justified in dismissing that evidence as not _specifically_ supporting the christian case which you stated.

If you think that we are "wolves" for demanding such evidence, then maybe that is an unconscious admission of your own sheepish defeat... However, I'm not saying you are defeated if you can deliver the goods. I'm waiting with bated breath.

Swearing in
If I am ever elected to any office, I want to be sworn in on a stack of Star Trek DVDs and books.

Personal injury lawyer on a banana peel?
http://www.givemetheinfo.com/blog/blogger.html

Agreed
About the Vonage ads.

The Federalist papers are irrelevant concerning the Constitution.
No one, at least not me, is saying that most of the framers weren't Christians, or at least deists, or that a belief in a creator wasn't prevalent. These are not the issues in dispute.

You seem to think that bringing up the Federalist papers, writings of the framers and calling me a wolf somehow deletes the fact that the first amendment to the Constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Now, you can continue to insult my intelligence, or you can attempt to argue why this establishment clause was put into the Constitution and what how to interpret it.

Or you can continue to call me a wolf or a liberal and make yourself look as silly as Lynn.



Muslim holy book?
Holy Scriptures Redefined:

By Age of Enlightenment....

Muslim Holy book? Which one?

The Koran?
which version? sunni or shi'a

Hadith?
which version? sunni or shi'a





?
???????????????????
Hadith Qur'an
? ? ? ?
Ilm ar-Rijal collections Tafsir Sura
? ? ? ? ?
Sunni Shi'a Sunni Shi'a Ayah

Grrrrrr...
I suspect there is one subject with which we can all agree....

These "Vonage" pop-ups are annoying in the extreme and will absolutely preclude me from ever considering Vonage. (I thought Townhall had gotten the message about these pop-ups once before!)

congressive writes
"I'm as liberal as they come..."

Agreed.

Correction
that should read "didn't mean" instead of "didn't need".

Lynne
Sorry... didn't need to abandon you to the wolves (aka, utahnotmormon and thickasabrick).

The argument I believe has somewhat devolved from the original premise, which is the intent of the framers. Utahnotmormon keeps pounding the "well, then why didn't they just say that?" drum and you are correct in not responding to such an asinine question.

If the "wolves" have never heard of or read the Federalist Papers and other writings of the framers, then all the arguing in the world isn't going to change their minds.

BTW, out of curiosity, from where do you hail?

Dianetics
I do swear and affirm by all that I hold in Dianetics to uphold the laws.....

Which Holy Book?
What would a Scientologist swear on? A stack of poorly written science fiction novels?

Answers
"1. If everything and every circumstance were exactly the same as today in the W.O.T., but the President was a Democrat, would you be as vocal in opposing the administration's actions on U.S. involvement in Iraq?
2. Can you summarize for me in one paragraph the Democratic Plan to achieve victory in Iraq and the broader war against terrorism?"

I'm as liberal as they come, and I'll answer your questions:

1. Yes. Being labeled a Democrat doesn't mean you get a free pass. Look at Lieberman. Total liar. Republicans have this "loyalty over truth" thing that liberals see as hypocrisy. In fact, the Democrats were shouted down with "de-escalate, investigate, troops home now" in a recent CNN piece BY DEMOCRATS. Warning to Democrats: do as you promised or we will eat you alive.

2. What are you talking about? Bush was and is victorious in Iraq. He achieved EXACTLY what he intended. Sky high oil profits (reduce supply, prices rise, econ 101) and billions in perpetual profits as long as we stay in Iraq, which he planned to be forever. He has no withdrawal plan because he never planned to withdraw. Saddam and the Baathists were defeated, and now chaos reigns: mission accomplished. The problem is purely perceptual. This isn't the "victory" the American public was promised. But when George says we aren't losing, he's right. He isn't. When he says the economy is strong, he isn't lying. His economy is unbelievably strong. As for the war on terror, since more Americans are killed every year by peanuts than terrorists (let's not even mention car crashes, bad prescriptions and spousal abuse), you answer this question first: what war?

As for "zero":

The nr. zero was invented independently in India and by the Maya. In India a decimal system was used, like ours, but they used an *empty space* for zero up to 3rd Century BC. This was confusing for an empty space was also used to separate numbers, and so they *invented the dot for a zero. * The first evidence for the use of the symbol that we now know as zero stems from the 7th century AD. The Maya invented the number zero for their calendars in the 3rd century AD.
The number zero reached European civilisation through the Arabs after 800 AD. The Greek and Roman did not need the number zero for they did their calculations on an abacus. The name 'zero' comes from the *arabic* 'sifr'.
(Data from the book "the calender" by D. E. Duncan)."

It was included for a tiny amount of levity. Close to zero, perhaps...

Lynn,...
Not because of disagreement. Defeat because you cannot come up with a convincing argument. We can agree to disagree, however both sides should at least try to prove their point with at least a veneer of reason.

The point with TH, I think, is not to convert your "opponent", which you will almost never do, since humans are almost incapable of being honest with themselves, particularly when their ego is at stake. No, the point is to make a convincing argument so that the fence-sitters may come down on one side or the other.

Incredible...GoMommyGo writes,
"Do you know anything about Islam?
Based on what I've read, you're denouncing the faith of millions w/o bothering to gather relevent facts, first. Did you know Islam honors both Christianity AND Judaism?"

GoMommyGo, here's a little clarity for you in regard to defining the 'honor' you presume to see within Islam toward Christians and Jews:

'O ye [MUSLIMS] who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends [PERIOD!] and protectors [FOR EMPHASIS AND CLARITY]: They are but friends and protectors to each other [IN INFERIORITY]. And he amongst you [OF ISLAM] that turns to them (for friendship) is of them [LESS HONORABLE]. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust [AS THE TWO AFOREMENTIONED ABOVE - GET IT?].' [Surah 005.051]

GoMommyGo, can it be stated any more clearly?

Lynne
I concede defeat. Your presentation has overwhelmed me. Now I am going to brush up so I don't have any other God before me, take the Lord's name in vain, work on Sunday, commit adultery(that'll be a tough one, since I'm not married - I did get the kids, though, last Saturday my daughter turned 12, and she's my oldest), crave my neighbor's wife or snowblower, or lie to the IRS, since my kids are 100% dependent on me and Congress has laws against that stuff.

a valid point
The government is secular because that's the way the framers intended it to be. An arguement in opposition of that glaring reality is the one that needs validation, but there is none.

KORAN STATES "KILL ALL INFIDELS";
There are a few left wing 'liberals' on this site who seem to enjoy attacking posts that put forth WHAT IS REAL FACTS with their hostile propaganda.

LIKE IT OR NOT THIS COUNTRY WAS FORMED BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS AS "Judeo-Christian" even though AMERICA is a 'CHRISTIAN' country that permits all FAITHS and people who practice NO FAITH.

THE REAL FACTS, ARE THE KORAN IS SPECIFIC AND REQUIRES TOTAL ALLEGIANCE TO MOHAMADS PRINCIPLES! READ THE KORAN AND SEE FOR YOURSELF!

american liberal
"Yes I would oppose the involvment in Iraq if the president was a democrat. There is no such thing as a good war, war is a last resort. "

Please show me where the current wingnuts foaming over Iraq were calling Clinton Hitler and making mockumentaries of his assasination during Bosnia.
No WMDS. Milosovic never threatened the US. Haliburton got no bid contracts back then too.

Its all bullsh!t and vitriol. Plain. And. Simple.

"And the war in Iraq wasn't a last resort, there are ulterior motives that you nor I are privy too."

It you and I are not privy to them, how do you know they exist? I am sure there is intelligence not available to the general public(until the NYT gets a hold of it) but I doubt its nefarious soap opera crap the lefties cook up about the administration.

Wail and moan all you like but we still only get about 10% or so of our oil from the MidEast.

Lynne...
no, sorry it is you who is not understanding a very simple point. UNM's argument is very clear and reaonable. You must try to do better, or you may graciously concede defeat.

To congressive
What I have read in history is that the element zero originally came from the Hindus in India and was picked up by the Arabs. In any case, the concept of zero came around several hundred years BEFORE the Muslim religion. I don’t agree with a lot of things that are posted here by the religious elements but if you are going to post a dissertation on why they are wrong, at least make it accurate.

Dottie:
Sorry Dot; but my Protestant church teaches us that in order for God to hear your prayers it much be prayed in the name of Jesus, because thats what the Bible say's to do. Mary and all the other disciples were a means to a end, they were all part of God's master plan for humanity, not people to be prayed to.

Thank you Congressive
"Does the term "Age of Enlightenment" or perhaps "Age of Reason" ring any bells in your batfry? Sure, conjure up one or two examples of religio-nutcase holdouts during the Revolution, but our nation was born of science and nature, industry, a healthy hatred of the King's religion, and a loathing of corporate control over human rights."

Maybe a second reading will reasonably enlighten those who simply "believe" instead of "think". The former narrows the mind, the latter expands the mind.

To liberalgoodman (LGM)
Since my heart attack I have had to cut back on the beers and quit smoking. That raises a lot of frustration which I take out on irrational posts from liberal socialists.

Read a book, people
You keep referring to Christianity as the foundation of our country. Does the term "Age of Enlightenment" or perhaps "Age of Reason" ring any bells in your batfry? Sure, conjure up one or two examples of religio-nutcase holdouts during the Revolution, but our nation was born of science and nature, industry, a healthy hatred of the King's religion, and a loathing of corporate control over human rights.

This nation was not founded on "boogie-ghost-in-the-sky" fears of eternal damnation unless you do exactly as the preacher says. If only you had paid just a tiny bit of attention in your history classes, you'd know Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, inventor of algebra, was a huge influence over the minds of the founders, having created universal order out of science inspired the same in politics through a path defined by Fibonacci and Newton. al-Khwarizmi, a Muslim, is also credited with inventing the number "zero", something I'm sure you have seen at the top of your history lessons over and over again... Please, people, take a remedial class at your local J.C. or something, because you are spouting nonsense. This country was founded, thankfully, in an AGE, not just a month or two, where science overtook superstition.

Reality is not defined by repetition and volume, as much as you'd like it to be.

Why a stupid question?
My arguement - The framers of the Constitution specifically and intentionally put the establishment clause into the Constitution. Even with all the quotes and writings from the era("I actually wasn't around then") not one person can come up with a statement that supports that the the 10 Commandments were the foundational basis for their conclusions.

Counter-arguement - What they really meant was something entirely different than what they wrote down and either all agreed upon, or agreed with such a majority that it became part of the 1st amendment.

Now, honestly, tell me which arguement sounds stupid.

Never
In my 34 years as a police officer I testified in hundreds of trials and was never sworn using a Bible or anything else.

I just went to the witness box raised my right hand swore to tell the truth said yes and that was it.

This was in New York. But I was not a NYC police officer.


Don't taint all Muslims as evil only those who don't denounce those that fly planes into buildings and kill 3,000 people.

Mainstream??
DavidMac writes: "Also, I'm not religious but I do know that a Muslim ACLU would demand the execution of all Jews and Christians." I miss the days when Jews would eat Christian babies at Passover, but this is just as just as cool, and there is precident in the Bible for crazy guys from Egypt trying to kill lots of Jews.

Vic: Let's see who is closer to the mark. I don't think "These plants are shutdown. Unemployment increases from current 4.5% to 15.5% and economy tanks. Greenies are happy because US has been humbled." is a serious possibility. Maybe you should have a beer with DavidMac.

To gomommygo
Obviously you have read neither the posts or the Quran if that is what you believe.

In other words, Lynne
You can't answer the question. Even your attempt to obfuscate was weak, especially me grasping at straws, unless you were making some pun about you having a strawman non-arguement.

Do you know anything about Islam?
Based on what I've read, you're denouncing the faith of millions w/o bothering to gather relevent facts, first. Did you know Islam honors both Christianity AND Judaism?

When Christians (not exactly the same as Americans) actually practice their "Judeo-Christian" values, like loving our neighbors, you won't need to insist that your scriptures are the only holy ones.

Lynne
Do yourself a favor. Read the 1st amendment to the Constitution. That's what counts, and it is clear and unequivocable as to the meaning.

Having no other God before me clearly establishes a preference for the God of the Bible in direct conflict to the amendment.

Now, do I think that the 10 commandments should be banned from public places like schools and courthouses? No, I don't think that was the intent at all, and I disagree with ACLU lawsuits of that nature.

However, my dispute was with the actual paragraph that I copied especially,

> the 10 Commandments were the foundational basis for their conclusions<

If so, why didn't they state that? Why didn't they agree in the 1st amendment to write:

Congress shall base all laws on the 10 commandments or Congress puts no other God but the God of the Bible when considering laws

instead of

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

????


Vic
Nice response to LGM's usual socialist-utopian meanderings.

Also, I'm not religious but I do know that a Muslim ACLU would demand the execution of all Jews and Christians.

Muslim ideology demands death to Jews and Christians. Forget the religious drivel on both sides; this war isn't REALLY about religion. It's about a power grab by muslim countries that use terrorism as a method of warfare. (They can't conduct a conventional or even a guerilla war because they are basically cowards).

The Christians keep wanting to debate this on a theological level. Waste of time, believe me. This is classic political-economic warfare conducted with low-level intensity.

Rosie O'Dumbell was wrong about Christians: they do not conduct war by terror as the muslim pukes do. Then again, Rosie the Red is wrong about all things, anyway.

Lynne wrote......
"Gaylord, oh, almost forgot
Ms. Cheney. Thanks. I like that. :-)"

I knew you would Missy, that's part of the reason I wrote it, part I say. Actually, Lynne is a pretty good ol' gal, 'cepting her politics. (At my age I should be careful who I call old.)

And ol' Dick Vader, I don't like his neo-con politics either but I don't hate him like sooooo many do. See, he bears a strong resemblance to my oldest brother.

Good day Ms. Cheney.



Airborne, stop being so thin-skinned
I only corrected you because you were spouting something from a position of ignorance, and you still are. If you had actually been joking about Catholics, I would not have said anything to you, but that was not the case. I do not recall Jesus ever saying that people could not ask others to pray for them. We do not pray through God, we pray to Him. Maybe you need to take some classes at your local Catholic Church before exposing any more prejudiced thoughts.

vic...
I did see that, and I agree. If there is already a (secular) oath and affirmation then that should be sufficient.

Nevertheless, after that reasonable observation, there was still a lot of irrational religious argument (uh, sorry, that was a redundancy since rational religious argument is an oxymoron) so I thought I might inject another reminder, with some additional justification.

Still, I would like to see why self-described christians are happy to take oaths on the very book which proscribes such oaths.

To thickasabrick
Way back at the beginning of this thread I had recommended that we get rid of it all together and go to a signed statement with "oath and affirmation" like we used to have to do for government regulation compliance. Someone else later posted that we were already doing that and all the other stuff is just for show and means nothing.

United States of Allah
I could understand the controversy over whether the christian or muslim bible was used for taking oaths if anyone really expected it to make a difference. The public officials need to promise to uphold the law. We all know that they follow the letter, but ignore the spirit of the law when it suits them. If anybody thinks that their behavior depends on which tome they lay their hands on, then they are hopeless idealists.

So I say this is not a problem. For the camera, let them take an oath on Mein Kampf if they think it will reassure the public.

I do, however, find it ironic that many of the posters here who defend the christian bible are quite happy to ignore its recommendation against taking elaborate oaths. I agree with the bible here: a simple "give my word" would be better than all the pious posturing these bozos use to rally their "base".

I haven't actually seen a justification for this glaring blind spot, but maybe I missed it...

Koranic verses
What follows are a few passages from the Koran addressing both Christians and Jews, as well as our 'tolerant [disbelieving] liberals' who would champion the very cause and ideology that clearly delineates its intentions against them, and us, alike.
If only people would open their eyes and read the truth for themselves rather than simply endeavoring to "feel" for others - with vacant minds.

_________________________________________________


ALLIANCES,
•Christians and Jews

005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

_________________________________________________


JIHAD (fighting, striving, struggling, endeavoring)
•striving hard against disbelievers

009.073
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.
PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.
SHAKIR: O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

_________________________________________________


REPENTANCE -

009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.



Hogwash
>The Declaration of Independence gives all mankind certain unalienable rights, but the framers worked out the details of how the people of the United States would govern themselves, and the 10 Commandments were the foundational basis for their conclusions. Anyone who does not believe this is true simply has never really taken the time to understand exactly where they gained their right to dissent.<

If the 10 commandments were the foundational basis for their conclusions, then why did they specifically make the 1st commandment, seemingly the most important, unconstitutional?
If they meant all the things you claim, why didn't they explicitly express it in their documents?


To liberalgoodman (LGM)
liberalgoodman writes: Sunday, January, 21, 2007 3:55 PM Predictions for gently99 Predictions, what might happen with "liberals" in power.
_________________________________________________
LGM predicts: Economy: tax increases to balance the budget. The resulting economic boom will make even conservatives happy.
_________________________________________________

Actual happening: Liberals raise taxes on the “wealthy” which is defined as anyone actually working. Economy slows as tax increases begin to take effect.
_____________________________________________________
LGM predicts: Global warming: national measures to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions. That might be a tradable carbon tax.
______________________________________________________
Actuality: Law passes that taxes US businesses with the taxes being forwarded to 3rd world countries (Kyoto). Small businesses who can not afford it shut down. Large businesses lose profit on older plants that emit more CO2. These plants are shutdown. Unemployment increases from current 4.5% to 15.5% and economy tanks. Greenies are happy because US has been humbled.
_______________________________________________________

LGM predicts: Illegal immegration: little change here. Perhaps an amnesty for people already here. Certainly no fence.
_______________________________________________________

Actuality: No fence is built. No effort is made to even make an attempt at curtailing entry. Flood of illegals cross the border in numbers unprecedented in this century. Spanish becomes the national defacto language. Demos give all new aliens the vote expecting elections into perpetuity. New citizens elect new Spanish congress. Border between Mexico and old US is dissolved. USA ceases to exist.
_______________________________________________________
LGM prediction Iraq: Phased withdrawal of US forces combined with fragmentation of the country, with the Sunnis getting little. In particular, look for them to be ethnically clensed from Baghdad. Low level warfare between the Sunni and Shiite regions, with the Saudi's stepping in just enough to keep the Sunnis from being wiped out. Possibly some minor border shooting between Turkey and Kurdistan. Massive recrimination by Republicans against Democrats, Republicans claiming that we should have "stayed the course".
_______________________________________________________
Actuality: Another wholesale slaughter similar to Cambodia commences. Saudi Arabia attempts to intervene however Iran enters fray simultaneously from the East. Iran captures all of Iraq and most of Saudi Arabia. US sits on sidelines at the advice of Murtha and company.
_______________________________________________________
LGM prediction: Personal liberties: rollback of Bush era privacy invasion. Laws against domestic wiretapping and other information gathering operations.
_______________________________________________________
Actuality: laws are changed but not eliminated since the precedent has already been set. Laws which had been applicable only to foreign terrorists are made applicable to US citizens and are enforced to limit new speech code violations and hate crimes.
_______________________________________________________
LGM prediction: Entitlements: Tax increases to shore up medicare. Little change on Social Security.
_______________________________________________________
Actuality: Tax increases for all along with Kyoto style wealth transfers causes US economy to return to Carter years. Inflation hits 25% and unemployment reaches 30%. All of this has no long term impact since following takeover by the new Mexican oriented congress, the USA ceases to exist.
_________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

I could go on forever on this but it is getting too long already.


The primus54 Challenge
*So, you claim to be an independent. That's great if true, but your *ideology is still decidedly liberal. Perhaps in YOUR case, you don't put *party ahead of country, but so many who share your viewpoint in fact *do so.
I think both parties are corrupt and full of gas, so yes, I am independent.

*I have yet to get a straight answer from a liberal to two questions I pose *to them:
*1. If everything and every circumstance were exactly the same as today *in the W.O.T., but the President was a Democrat, would you be as vocal *in opposing the administration's actions on U.S. involvement in Iraq?

Yes I would oppose the involvment in Iraq if the president was a democrat. There is no such thing as a good war, war is a last resort. And the war in Iraq wasn't a last resort, there are ulterior motives that you nor I are privy too.

*2. Can you summarize for me in one paragraph the Democratic Plan to *achieve victory in Iraq and the broader war against terrorism?

We already have victory in Iraq. We had a regime change, remember. So it's time to declare victory and pull out. We can be a part of a larger international effort to help keep the peace (ie, UN in Bosnia), but it's time to pull out. Muslims are killing muslims and we're in the middle. We've eliminated the head and are now witnessing the fight for succession. It's not our country, so we're not in charge of who succeeds the tyrant. As far as the war on terrorism, I am hoping that democrats would do what bush is doing but in a more transparent manner. If you lose the trust of those you govern, you can no longer govern. The american voters aren't children to be taken care of, we're adults that need to take care of ourselves. What happened to conservatives fear of big brother. I guess if big brother is a fellow conservative christian, they don't mind. But folks, be careful when you give power to an office, because that office changes hand.

Now let me ask you Primus54. If the president were currently Hillary and not George, would you wholeheartedly support what is going on now with her administration as you do this one?

Predictions for gently99
Predictions, what might happen with "liberals" in power.

Economy: tax increases to balance the budget. The resulting economic boom will make even conservatives happy.

Global warming: national measures to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions. That might be a tradable carbon tax.

Illegal immegration: little change here. Perhaps an amnesty for people already here. Certainly no fence.

Iraq: Phased withdrawal of US forces combined with fragmentation of the country, with the Sunnis getting little. In particular, look for them to be ethnically clensed from Baghdad. Low level warfare between the Sunni and Shiite regions, with the Saudi's stepping in just enough to keep the Sunnis from being wiped out. Possibly some minor border shooting between Turkey and Kurdistan. Massive recrimination by Republicans against Democrats, Republicans claiming that we should have "stayed the course".

Personal liberties: rollback of Bush era privacy invasion. Laws against domestic wiretapping and other information gathering operations.

Entitlements: Tax increases to shore up medicare. Little change on Social Security.

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing
"What to be aware of in others and what to watch out for in ourselves."

2Peter, Chapter 2

v1 They will deny Christ.

v2 They will make truth appear as evil.

v3 They will exploit people with cunning arguments.

v10 They will be "self-willed," that is, obstinate in doing whatever they want without regard for others.

v12 They will have little knowledge of the things of righteousness which they defy.

v13 They will sin openly, publicly, willfully.

v14 They will be motivated by lust and greed.

v14 They will prey upon those who are unstable and unseasoned.

v18 They will present their cause with polished rhetoric and oratory.

v19 They will promise to liberate those who sympathize with and follow after them.

The ACLU as part of their deceptive practices will occasionally employ the tactic of appearing to be on the side of those they actually loathe. They do not particularly care how long it takes to destroy America, but they do mean to do so. Even the wolf will pass by a meal if he is not particularly hungry, but beware, his hunger will return, and so will he.

While the Framer's Constitution did not in any way declare that the United States of America was a Christian nation, it should be understood that Christianity was the predominant mind set which brought about their consensus. Anyone who declares that this is not true simply does not know those who authored the most liberating form of governance ever devised by man, and blessed by God. They all, for the most part, had a personal concept of the same Being Who was the Providence they relied upon to guide their thinking, and ultimately their conclusion to accept the Constitutional foundations which had been framed.

The Declaration of Independence gives all mankind certain unalienable rights, but the framers worked out the details of how the people of the United States would govern themselves, and the 10 Commandments were the foundational basis for their conclusions. Anyone who does not believe this is true simply has never really taken the time to understand exactly where they gained their right to dissent.

While it is certain that all individuals have a right to certain established pursuits, the belief that the majority must accept them as a part of the collective behavior is an absolute fallacy. It is also a glaring misconception that neither the Supreme Court, nor any other court has the Constitutional right to reinvent the founding principles based upon their individual, or collective interpretation. The 3 branches of government agreed upon are designed to check themselves, and not the will of the majority of the people. The rule of law protects the minority, but does not give the minority rights not inherent to the individual through the Declaration of Independence. In other words, You have the right to swear to uphold anything you wish, but if you attempt to uphold something which may subvert, or usurp the power of the people collectively, you may be tried, found guilty of treason, and be summarily put to death.

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay (1745-1829), Original Chief-Justice of the United States Supreme Court, President of the American Bible Society

There are some who want to declare that Jesus Christ is just another man or philosopher with similarities to other men who have been able to begin so-called religious movements. That is certainly their Constitutional prerogative, but they are likewise guaranteed to have the same right to be wrongly persuaded. Jesus Christ is the only Savior of the world, and His Word is the only valid approach to Eternal Life. You may choose to disbelieve, and proclaim otherwise, but in the end, you must be prepared to accept personal responsibility for your decision.

Again, it is preferable to believe that God does live, and find you were right than to believe He does not and find you were eternally mistaken. If you will humble yourself long enough to consider the possibilities you may see more clearly that only His absolute love for all of His children, including those who choose to reject Him, has the power to forgive. The Constitution gives you the power to choose wisely or arrogantly, only you may decide which way you are willing to risk for the sake of pride.

precedent
A previous case in court not in Congress resulted in the person not being able to use the Koran in court to swear in so if precedent means anything the Koran should not be used in Congress. I don't know if anyone ever just refused to place their hand on the Bible when they took an oath but my feeling is they should be able to. I remember taking a loyalty oath just by signing a piece of paper.

Primus 54
You have reffered to me as a liberal several times today.
Please indicate what positions I have taken that would indicate liberalism in your mind.

Or is just that you use the word liberally for anyone who dares contradict you?

To old man
What really bothers me about the Supreme Court’s mis-reading of the 14th Amendment is the hypocritical way they have of selectively interpreting the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. Some how or another those rights that liberals do not like have not been applied. Hence the 2nd amendment applies only to the feds and its ok for states like MA and NY to virtually outlaw firearms.

ACLU
THE COURT ORDER IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT
INSTITUTE A STATE RELIGION OR INTERFERE WITH
THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION. ALL THINGS NOT SET
OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION IS RESERVED FOR STATE
{ALL 50} RIGHTS. IF THE PEOPLE OF NC WANT TO USE THE BIBLE TO SWEAR AN OATH ON THAT IS THEIR RIGHT.
IF THE FEDS SAY NO THEY ARE INTERFERING WITH
THE PEOPLE OF THAT STATE PRACTICING THEIR FAITH.

Lynne
Thanks!

Guess I remembered to eat my Wheaties today! :-)

As to Utahnotmormon -- Nah, no expectations do I ever place upon liberals... there are enough "letdowns" in life without adding them to it!

Huh... just read Gaylord's 2:25PM post. I must have missed something earlier, because this one is completely indecipherable.... as opposed to his normal opinions!

Also
If the concern of "state religions" again is so big, why, when the Bill of Rights wasn't applied to the States and people were much more fundamental than now, didn't they carry that out?

Why? Because the majority didn't want it done and blocked it with their State Constitutions, legislation, and culture.

Even when we had state religions, the trend was always away from them as a majority, not toward them. The majority would change as the majority diversified then as it can today without the Court's help, though amendments.

Dottie being twofaced
Dottie; why did'nt you criticize Lydia for her joke about the Prophet Mohammed? no, you waited until I came along and joked about catholic's, to try to set me straight. Sorry mommy but that's being two-faced and not fair in my book, and again, Jesus said your prayers to God will go NOWHERE unlest they go thru HIM first. The saint cannot intercede on our behalf on anybody else's. Thats why Jesus died for us in the first place, so we would'nt have the need for dead saints to go to God on our behalf, Jesus does that already.

tahnotmormon writes:
tahnotmormon writes: Sunday, January, 21, 2007 1:11 PM
What?
>It is since the 1930's there has been this cry for "unity" which is "socialism" and denying each majority in each state the right to their own culture regardless of how many races, nationalities and creeds comprise it. This call for unity is socialist speak for do it my way or I will have the Courts make you do it my way.<

Let me get this straight. If the majority in say, New Mexico, becomes Hispanic, then you believe they have as a state right to establish Spanish as a the official religion?

If you recall, I said that the Constitution of the State and the U.S. were both part of the formula.

The 14th Amendment gave Congress (not the Courts) the ability to see that what you fear couldn't come to pass unless the Constitutions of the states and U.S. were changed which would reguire a huge majority shift in thinking.

At the same time, Nevada could and did legalize prostitution and even though they were the only state to do so, the rest of the nation's majorities that had banned it in their states, didn't try to force Nevada to comply with their views of morality. Nor, did Nevada try to use the Federal Courts to demand all states conform to their morality standards. Same with gambling or with "dry counties" where the sale of alcohol is prohibited. They don't impose their will on others and others don't impose their will on them.

Each state doing its own thing with the oversight of the U.S. as a whole through Congress is who we were set up after the 14th amendment was passed.

Again the Bill of Rights, were not applied to the states for 150 years until Gitlow in 1925 (the 1897 case also was the same as a state constitutional provision and many don't consider it the first application of the Bill of Rights to states). Also, Gitlow, was the foundation for Griswold and other cases that determined later rulings more than other cases prior to Gitlow.

Thus, for 175 years when the 1st amendment was added to the list of Amendments from the Bill of Rights, was to become the focus of rulings, states banned all kinds of things detrimental to public health, trust and morality. It is the religions of Atheism and Secular Humanism (Supreme Court ruling them religions) that has been most vocal about doing away with the laws of the first 175 years.

On the lame game.
You too MS. Cheney.

Gaylord opines:
"Still lost in the confusion is the TWO swearing in ceremonies. One is legal and official, the other is nothing more than show time. This thread dwells on the later, the one that carries no legal weight and is meaningless..."

Huh... well, if the "other" ceremony is "meaningless", I wonder why it is done at all?

Public consumption maybe? If so, then how the public "perceives" this ceremony is what really counts... since it is the public that votes.

On that basis, it sure doesn't seem "meaningless" to me.

eagelclaw writes:
"Were not all these gentlemen socialist kinda like the modern liberal?"

Good response, Eagelclaw!

Did you also notice that our liberal friend, Utahnotmormon, totally ignored the point of my comments, focusing only on my "intolerance"?

As you might say, "...kinda like the modern liberal?"

Another step
This was just another step in the liberals goal of destroying the United States.

I find it Ironic
Is it not ironic that Keith Ellison used Thomas Jefferson's Quran to swear on? I mean, wasn't he the first US president to have a "war on terror"?

As long as you realize that your statement mirrors the philosophy of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and every other totalitarian regime, then your intolerance is well understood.

Were not all these gentlemen socialist kinda like the modern liberal?

"Book with the talking snake"
Good one everyonesfacts!

Still lost in the confusion is the TWO swearing in ceremonies. One is legal and official, the other is nothing more than show time. This thread dwells on the later, the one that carries no legal weight and is meaningless. So there is no real substance to the arguments presented here, they too are all fluff.

utahnotmormon opines:
"...since the founding fathers didn't qualify their writings with your assunptions."

Really????

Well... I'll be darned. Somebody burn some books and "revise" history??? (again!)


utahnotmormon opines:
"As long as you realize that your statement mirrors the philosophy of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and every other totalitarian regime, then your intolerance is well understood..."

Gee... you left out Pol Pot, Saddam, Quadafy and a host of others. I feel let down!

Sadly, the analogy falls apart when you add "democratically elected by a majority of the people" into the argument.

Next time -- before you get your panties in a bunch and post a typical, liberal response -- think before you type.

You are my "political enemy", not someone I'd like to place behind bars... or worse. There IS a difference.

By the way
>By the way, "Spanish" is a language or culture, not a religion.<

Self corrected 15 minutes before your post.

Now, your statement that:

>There is simply a guarantee that no citizen will be forced by the federal government to subscribe to a state sponsored religion or church, such as the Anglican Church from which our founders sought refuge.<

re-inforces that no citizen should be forced to take an oath that is religious. I'm afraid the slippery slope is the one you're on, since the founding fathers didn't qualify their writings with your assunptions.

I'm no fan of the ACLU, but that doesn't mean they're never right.

"Suggest you read Thomas Jefferson`s
Bible" learner.....Interesting you brought that up. Jefferson came up with his version of the bible. He culled all the miracles and mysticism, yes he heavily edited, and ended up with essentially a 'holy pamphlet'. Imagine the clerical response to that!? Maybe that is why the pulpits were in a tizzy and preached that if Jefferson were elected to the Presidency, believers would have to hide their bibles in wells. Read "The Radical Politics Of Thomas Jefferson".

Abrahamic tradition
Islam is part of the Abrahamic tradition.

I'm not sure what all the controversy is
about, I say everyone has to swear on
the book with the talking snake.


utahnotmormon
By way of your 1:11PM post, you demonstrate the very accurate observation of what happens when one has succumbed to the slippery slope.

Contrary to the beliefs of many, many people, there is no "separation of church and state" clause in our Constitution. There is simply a guarantee that no citizen will be forced by the federal government to subscribe to a state sponsored religion or church, such as the Anglican Church from which our founders sought refuge.

That did not mean that our Founders sought to escape from the norms of morality and principles most closely associated with "Judeo-Christian" beliefs. They understood that man is an inherently imperfect creature and that a workable society must have some guidelines for acceptable behaviors to prevent anarchy. Most of our criminal laws are based upon such guidelines.

If you watch the progress of the ACLU, it is not a stretch to forecast a day when our very laws become questioned BECAUSE of their origins and the connection to a "certain religion's" principles and morality.

By the way, "Spanish" is a language or culture, not a religion.

Primus 54
>As long as such people exist and have some power to effect a political outcome on U.S. foreign policy, I will see them as "enemies" of this great nation.<

As long as you realize that your statement mirrors the philosophy of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and every other totalitarian regime, then your intolerance is well understood.


language, not religion
in New Mexico.

an american liberal
So, you claim to be an independent. That's great if true, but your ideology is still decidedly liberal. Perhaps in YOUR case, you don't put party ahead of country, but so many who share your viewpoint in fact do so.

I have yet to get a straight answer from a liberal to two questions I pose to them:

1. If everything and every circumstance were exactly the same as today in the W.O.T., but the President was a Democrat, would you be as vocal in opposing the administration's actions on U.S. involvement in Iraq?
2. Can you summarize for me in one paragraph the Democratic Plan to achieve victory in Iraq and the broader war against terrorism?

The responses I usually get range from obfuscation of the questions to total hypocracy. Not one single time has anyone answered these questions in a coherant fashion.

As long as such people exist and have some power to effect a political outcome on U.S. foreign policy, I will see them as "enemies" of this great nation.

If that makes me intolerant in the eyes of such people... they are correct... I am.


What?
>It is since the 1930's there has been this cry for "unity" which is "socialism" and denying each majority in each state the right to their own culture regardless of how many races, nationalities and creeds comprise it. This call for unity is socialist speak for do it my way or I will have the Courts make you do it my way.<

Let me get this straight. If the majority in say, New Mexico, becomes Hispanic, then you believe they have as a state right to establish Spanish as a the official religion?

Here in Utah, where the LDS Church is a majority(though shrinking), you believe they have a right to dictate what kind of underwear its citizens must wear, or possibly make everyone tithe?

Lastly, what if Muslims decide to emigrate en masse to North Dakota, and become a majority of the population. Would it be > denying each majority in each state the right to their own culture(your words)< to oppose their desire for Sharia law?

The ACLU seems to be right on this issue. You either have a religious test that is inclusive of all religious versions of what constitutes "Holy Scriptures" or you have none. I vote for the latter. Otherwise, be careful what you wish for.

"Judeo-Christianity" & civil liberties
I was, and am, one of those who criticized Dennis Prager for his stand on Keith Ellison and his almost hysterical insistence that non-Christian Ellison ought to be pressured to pay public obeisance to the Judeo-Christian Bible. Prager went to great lengths to insist that he was not being "Islamophobic", that he would have had the same attitude if Ellison were a Hindu, a Buddhist, a secular humanist or a member of any other faith wanting to use any other sacred or honored text than the Bible. Ironically, I would have felt a little more sympathy for Prager's position if it HAD been more specifically "Islamophobic". The fact that I am not a believing "Judeo-Christian" does not mean that I particularly like Islam or that I see no reason to be concerned about increasing Islamic infuence. I acknowledge that, in present-day reality, Islam poses a much greater threat to civil liberties and freedom of though and religion than "Judeo-Christianity" does. If I were faced with the choice whether to vote for a Muslim for public office, it would give me real pause whether I could trust him to support American-style civil liberties. (I have, on the other hand, voted for Christians such as George W. Bush without worrying too much that they will set up a theocracy, even though I disagree with many of the views of the "relgious right".)

However, I am not at all convinced that this difference is rooted in the fundamental nature of "Judeo-Christianity" vs. Islam. Both faiths claim to have a handle on absolute truth and both have had a long history of persecution and oppression of non-believers. I see very little in the actual Bible that makes it more friendly to freedom of thought than the Koran. There have been times in history when Islam was at least marginally more tolerant than Christianity. If Christianity is now more tolerant than Islam, it is because of the differing histories of the two faiths and because Christianity has been more influenced (and mellowed) by the dreaded secular "Enlightenment".

And it strikes me as ironic that Frank Pastore quotes C. S. Lewis in support of his position, since I also have quoted Lewis in support of mine. Specifically, I've cited Lewis's "Aboliton of Man" in which Lewis notes that many basic moral principles are shared in common between the Bible and many other sacred texts and traditions. Though devoutly Christian, Lewis did not try to claim, as Prager and Pastore do, that Judeo-Christianity "invented" morality all by itself.

learner
"What really concerns me about this is if the Koran is allowed in court rooms then how long will it take for muslims to demand that no nonmuslim can testify against them and that if no 2 muslims can be found to testify that there cases will be thrown out per Islamic law?"

Yes, and this has already happened in Britain where communities have their sharia law.
Each step taken as the one described here is just another inroad as you described. Without a shot fired we are being undermined and eventually our society as we know it will no longer exist.

to 82nd airborne div
Frankly, I am surprised at you. I am a Catholic, and I do not believe that praying to Mary will get me into heaven. Also, I do not pray to the saints for good luck. Either you are making assumptions or you have been given incorrect information.

Many Catholics do pray THROUGH the saints (of which Mary is one). Because we do believe in eternal life, we believe these people are very much alive just not in human form. We ask for their intercession, and do not believe they have magical powers to grant wishes. This is no different than asking a friend or relative to pray for you.

I know many Catholics who never pray through the saints and many who regularly do. I would hope in the future, you get your facts straight before criticizing a religion.

The oath
"So help me God."

This isn't the same thing many think it is.

I promise to uphold the Constitution or duties of office, etc. with the help of God.

Regarding Ellison. If that was his "oath" then swearing on the Quran doesn't bind him to the principles of the Quran but to his duties as a Representative of the people and he is asking Allah, the same God of Abraham (according to them) that Jews and Christians worship, but rather to the people "with God's or Allah's help." It is an act of humility where the person giving the oath is saying, in effect, "I am a human with human frailties and can let the people down without help. I am asking the God that I believe in to help me not let the people down. I am asking God to remind me in some manner when I am deviating from the duties I have promised to uphold."

This isn't an oath to uphold any religious principle but rather the people's principes, the majority's principles under a State Constitution (that has God in it) and a U.S. Constitution (that doesn't have God in it to keep from interference with the state religions and religious cultures that were different in each state when it was written)

While I think that Ellison motivations were not the best, who am I to judge that? I have a Muslim acquaintence that is more "Christian" in how he treats people than some Christians. If he said he wanted to take an oath on the Quran, I would know it was because he wanted Allah to help him carry out his responsibilities of office, not the Muslim religion. I don't know that about Ellison but do hope his intention was pure.

My problem is that I don't trust politicians in either party to actually be asking for God's (or Allah's)help in more than furthering their own agenda or the party's agenda instead of the people's best interests.

The Koran and the ACLU
DUH!

an american liberal writes:
an american liberal writes: Sunday, January, 21, 2007 11:00 AM
Judeo-Christian values

There are hundreds of religions in this world. Doesn't that suggest that religion is culturally specific. Many Americans grew up in a christian culture, but read the bible. The values we have are not from the bible. We derived them ourselves. The bible is full of stories of incest, murder, terror and magic. You can believe that God made me from dirt, but I tend to think my monkey relatives aren't that bad.
==================================
Actually, I understand there are about 2,000 faiths and denominations but still 81% are Christian. All life is made from dirt, including monkeys. Check the materials that are in every living thing and they are found also in dirt. Even oxygen and water and water's components are found in dirt. God is life and virtually all people worship "Life" in some manner. Many in an "eternal life" since "life" is the force, not the lifeform itself. While we can disagree about whether or not Life can communicate or reason as it creates lifeforms, we can't deny that "Life" exists. The Bible was the history of "Life" in Israel and in the New Testament of Jesus and his followers who believed that "Life" was eternal.

That history is the lessons of "Life" that billions have followed to have a better life here on earth. The "laws" were based on either "communication" from "Life" or they were "cause and effect" observations that showed what worked or didn't work to unite that society. When they didn't follow the teachings, they suffered and when they did, they had a better life.
-----------------------------
So point out the horror of islam, but where were you people when we were following the careers of Muhamed Ali and Kareem Abdul Jabaar. The horror comes from fundamentalists that believe their holy book is "The Truth". And we have our own problem with fundamentalists.
===================================
What is wrong with following principles that made this nation great, warts and all. While we made many mistakes, the fundamentalists are what have also made the amendments for their State Constitutions and the U.S. Constitution that advanced this nation.
------------------------------
While this country is under attack, the far right christian conservatives are helping the attack. Rather then helping to unite the country, they are busy pointing fingers at the ACLU, american muslims, liberals and anything else that they taint as evil. Watch them turn if a democrat is elected president, their patriotism is really just nationalism tied to them being in charge. That is sad.
===================================
It was the far right Christians that founded this nation, not some list of people who wrote the Declaration or Constitution. The founders were the people who fought and died to win the Revolutionary War and who ratified the Constitutions of their States, all of which, even the entire 50 states today, have God in them. They were also the people who ratified the U.S. Constitution for without that ratification, there would be no Constitution or nation. And while not perfect, they did provide a means of change in the Constitution called the Amendment process, not the Court process.

It isn't that the ACLU or liberals have "evil intentions," but rather that their form of government doesn't work and even the sociallst nations they were holding up as examples are starting to have to make changes to a more capitalistic society in order to keep from further declines. (France is even considering cutting corporate taxes to stem the outflow of business, jobs and millionaires)

Their "feel good policies" may seem "fair," but they don't work in the long run.
---------------------------------------

Our ethnic diversity is what is saving our bacon because if our country was only full of the far right wackos, not only would every country hate us, where would we borrow the money from to keep going.
=========================

Actually it was our culture based on Biblical principle embraced by millions of immigrantst that came here to escape socialism, marxism, decadence, etc. What are those prinicples?

The search for wisdom, self-discipline that is at the heart of personal-responsiblity, limited government, caring for family and making the family the core strength of the nation, love of moral living, high standards that people try to reach instead of lowering standards to meet the depravity of man, and "love of Life." Whether God is "Life" or not, the principles to have a good life are the same.

For example, sex limited to marriage prevents much of the spread of sexually transmitted disease. Even Singapore which brags on being a secular government bans gay sex and they have a lower HIV rate by about 1/3 of ours the last I saw.

Obscenity, profanity, vular language? All part of respect for each other and all were regulated for 175 years in this nation and yet, with all that regulation of "free speech" we grew and had lower crime rates and lower school violence and lower revenge killings of bosses and lower suicide rates and lower drug abuse rates among teens, etc.

What exactly is wrong with the principles this nation was founded on since it was the religious right that founded this nation. We had state religions in some of the states until 1833. You couldn't be elected to some government offices in New Hampshire until 1877 if you were Catholic out of fear of a "top down" religious control of members. A minister couldn't hold office in many states with state religious connections to keep the "church" from having too much influence because the people, the majority, were controlling both the protestant churches and the state governments.

The Bill of Rights didn't apply for 150 years in this nation and atheists were denied the full access to government and a lot of other things and yet, the people, not the Courts made the changes that brought us to the 1930's socialism where FDR started the process that got the nation into the mess it is in now.

Returning to State Rights, a founding principle, would be one of the best things that ever happened. This nation was divided into 13 societies orignally, each with its own laws, culture, and religions. Even in the 1930, with most of our current states, it was still separate societies.

It is since the 1930's there has been this cry for "unity" which is "socialism" and denying each majority in each state the right to their own culture regardless of how many races, nationalities and creeds comprise it. This call for unity is socialist speak for do it my way or I will have the Courts make you do it my way.

Before, people could choose which culture they lived in. Each state and even the cities in each state offered different degrees of liberalism and conservatism. Now, liberals are demanding the whole nation conform to their view of what is "fair." That means, in some cases "unfair" to the majority.

That is not how the nation was founded by "fundamentalists." Nor is fundamentalism bad if it returns us to the principles the nation was founded on and gets us off the course to become another France.

Re:Gaylord
Suggest you read Thomas Jefferson`s "Bible" .
What really concerns me about this is if the Koran is allowed in court rooms then how long will it take for muslims to demand that no nonmuslim can testify against them and that if no 2 muslims can be found to testify that there cases will be thrown out per Islamic law?

liberalgoodman
One of your previous posts made the statement, with which i agree, that accurate prediction is an excellent measure of intelligence and connection with reality. Now that the left has power in Congress and seems to be in great shape to win the WH in 08, what do you see ahead? What should we do in Iraq, and when/if the D agenda is accomplished, what will be the result? What do you propose for social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as the inexorable pressure of demographics makes these bigger and bigger burdens on a work force getting smaller, percentagewise? What is your position on dealing with the large number of illegal aliens? You have the hammer now. Let's have some real predictions. What will the new congress do and what will be the results?

It's the Judges
All I know of this case is from this article but I'm stumped as to who the plaintiff being harmed is. Is there someone being prohibited by law from taking their personally-preferred oath in NC? The article doesn't say. It appears the ACLU is not representing anyone in particular therefore the case should have been refused for lack of a physical plaintiff and lack of actual harm suffered. At the very most the judges could have informed the state legislature that they are unable to rule in the case because the wording of the law is not clear and ask them to clarify their intent with regards to "Holy Scriptures." Of course that has its dangers too; the NC judges could have pulled a MA and ordered the legislature to create law with specific wording. Any way I look at this the problem is still with our judges more than the ACLU and if judges would start doing their jobs we would have grounds to sue the ACLU for harm on the grounds that they're tying up our courts with frivolous lawsuits which costs us all money, bottlenecks the courts and delays justice for real criminals committing real crimes.

typo correction to Primus54
"These so-called Christian conservatives you rail against have one thing in common with MOST Americans. And that is a true desire to defeat those who would destroy our country and our freedoms... freedoms which include freedom FROM religion."

The difference is that I don't include YOU in the enemies trying to destroy our country, while you label me as the villian. That is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Additionally, I'm an independent so I have no party to put before my country.

I'll give you your scissors analogy if you admit one blade is huge and the other is embarrassingly small. Kind of a crappy scissor to be cutting into a country as great as ours, don't you think?

Primus54
"These so-called Christian conservatives you rail against have one thing in common with MOST Americans. And that is a true desire to defeat those who would destroy our country and our freedoms... freedoms which include freedom FROM religion."

The difference is that I don't include in the enemies trying to destroy our country, while you label me as the villian. That is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Additionally, I'm an independent so I have no party to put before my country.

I'll give you your scissors analogy if you admit one blade is huge and the other is embarrassingly small. Kind of a crappy scissor to be cutting into a country as great as ours, don't you think?

an american liberal writes:
"While this country is under attack, the far right christian conservatives are helping the attack. Rather then helping to unite the country, they are busy pointing fingers at the ACLU, american muslims, liberals and anything else that they taint as evil..."

You do credit to your screen name.

These so-called Christian conservatives you rail against have one thing in common with MOST Americans. And that is a true desire to defeat those who would destroy our country and our freedoms... freedoms which include freedom FROM religion.

Sadly, too many of your thinking place ideology, party and power BEFORE country, thereby making the analogy of being one blade of the scissors quite apt.

I agree
>Ignorance dressed as knowledge is no more attractive than a donkey dressed as a ballerina.<

But the statement that you should have used as an example is:

>we must never let go of the fact that the people ultimately rule, and will rule once again when we return to the principles of "The Golden Rule" which is based upon the 10 commandments.<

Freedom bad
"The ACLU believes that all religious texts should be honored with the title “Holy Scriptures,” revealing their contempt for the Bible, and their total lack of appreciation to the set of Judeo-Christian values that gave birth to Western Civilization in general and America specifically."

This is wrong and wrong. Respecting the traditions of other people does not mean that you have contempt for the Christian Bible. The American constitution is an escape from "Judeo-Christian values". The Bible does not promote religious freedom, it calls those who practice other religions evil. The Bible does not promote democracy.


Gaylord
You sound like a person who has no belief in a power greater then himself. I suspect I am correct.

Either way... one "blood-drenched book" supports secular government... care to guess which one?


Judeo-Christian values
There are hundreds of religions in this world. Doesn't that suggest that religion is culturally specific. Many Americans grew up in a christian culture, but read the bible. The values we have are not from the bible. We derived them ourselves. The bible is full of stories of incest, murder, terror and magic. You can believe that God made me from dirt, but I tend to think my monkey relatives aren't that bad.

So point out the horror of islam, but where were you people when we were following the careers of Muhamed Ali and Kareem Abdul Jabaar. The horror comes from fundamentalists that believe their holy book is "The Truth". And we have our own problem with fundamentalists.

While this country is under attack, the far right christian conservatives are helping the attack. Rather then helping to unite the country, they are busy pointing fingers at the ACLU, american muslims, liberals and anything else that they taint as evil. Watch them turn if a democrat is elected president, their patriotism is really just nationalism tied to them being in charge. That is sad.

Our ethnic diversity is what is saving our bacon because if our country was only full of the far right wackos, not only would every country hate us, where would we borrow the money from to keep going.


Well Stated
This is better stated, but with the same troubling rationale I felt for this departure from the traditional practice of taking an oath on words we (in America) feel are sacred.
Once the gate is open, and the horse is out, you might as well never had a fence.
We either stand for what we believe, or we stand for nothing, and allowing our belief systems to be challenged in such ways will erode the ground upon which we stand.

Sorry,I don't read much fiction.
"when you could quote the chapter and the verse where He supposedly said it."

He said it, you know it and he never, ever quoted chapter and verse himself.

"The risk of tyranny"..
resides in the White-wash House.

Gaylord
If you are going to make asinine comments like:

"Didn't Jesus say something about not swearing at all, on anything. Christians believe "in" Jesus but they don't believe a word he said."

... then it would behoove you to have some familiarity with what the Christian Bible ACTUALLY does say. If you did, then you wouldn't have to ask "Didn't Jesus say something about..." when you could quote the chapter and the verse where He supposedly said it.

If you want to disparage Christians, at least do so from a minimally educated place. Ignorance dressed as knowledge is no more attractive than a donkey dressed as a ballerina.

Chipping away at America's foundations
As we have watched since the 1930s the Left and their naive liberal side kicks have slowly chipped away at the foundations of the USA. The problem became epidemic in the late 1960s and 1970s. Social concept that had been abhorrent just a generation before were made common place and now the accepted norm. We tried to return to some reason and the path leading to the the shining light on the hill but human frailties and temptation ended all that before the last election.

Radical Muslims are supported by the moderate Muslim community not because the latter necessarily supports jihad against the West but because they support Islam. The Muslim organization, foolishly supported by the Western Left, are continuing the gnawing away of the foundations of our society and culture.

With the present leadership in Congress and the strong possibility similar leadership will take over the White House, we are going to test the fundamental resiliency of the short live concept we have called the United States of America.

Do I think "liberals" are evil? No, they are just wronged headed ideologues or extremely naive. Do I think there are those on the Left in American politics that are evil? Yes, the risk of tyranny in our country has always existed and the Left has been the most durable contender for the job.

BIBLE specifies KILLING OF A HOST..
OF PEOPLE. One blood-drenched book is no better than the other.

KORAN specifies KILLING OF ALL INFIDELS
AND INFIDELS are specified a NON BELIEVERS which are CHRISTIANS AND JEWS!

Two blades on a set of scissors
Good article Mr. Pastore! I used to listen to your show every day when I lived in So. Cal. Glad you've made it to Townhall.com. Yes, the ACLU loves to chip away at values most Americans hold dear, values that, as you say, enable the ACLU to even exist. Perhaps they'll live to regret much of their legislation when this country is overrun by Muslims extremists. I liked your sentenced, "Strangely, both the Left and the Islamofascists function as two blades on a set of scissors, they are independent yet working together, to shred the fabric of Western culture." It's interesting how the forces of evil work together to overcome the light. But they will not prevail (John 10:10).

Kevin L. Howard, http://www.NeedNotFret.com

I could just cry
We are witnessing the destruction of our country. I don't know what to do anymore..writing congress doesn't work. We are sheep being led to the slaughter.


Didn't Jesus say something about...
not swearing at all, on anything. Christians believe "in" Jesus but they don't believe a word he said.

In the 'official' legal swearing-in a text of any kind is not only unnecessary, it is contemptible of the Constitution which is the centerpiece of the ceremony. Keep this rite of the Republic secular.

In the non legal, unoffical ceremony, the show-boating photo-op, those taking the oath should have their personal tastes and beliefs honored, no matter how silly they are.

aclu, Lenin, Marx
their motto: remove ("good") religion, then families perish.

Hawk,
get off the Obama is a muslim wagon it will only endear him more to americans because he is being picked on by mean republicans. If your father was in the KKK and took you to some meetings prior to age 6, does that make you a card carrying member? Give it up, it will only backfire on the GOP.

Why?
is the oath of any office a religeous one? The pledge used to NOT mention god. This all seems silly to me but what if an athiest said before taking office I swear to no god and under no god. Would this person be allowed to hold office? The bible was written when the wheel barrel was a space age invention, taking oaths is pretty archaic now that other religions are tolerated. You would like islam to modernize, maybe christianity could move in this direction. In the 1700s I doubt anyone other than a christian could hold any PROMINENT political office. Maybe it should be a pledge of allegiance NOT a religiuos oath. I seriously think it is unconstitutional to compel someone to take a religious outh at all.

11h

Communists
Lydia writes: "Oh what the heck."
Your post explains why democrats love Islam. Both are perverted fascists who believe in ruling by enslavement and use the murder of civilians to intimiate the masses.

Nikita Kruschev's declaration, ‘We shall destroy you from within’ is occuring today. The DNC, along with their communist allies of the ACLU, the NEA & the MSM are most definately succeeding in destroying the Constitutional Republic of the USA.

Interesting link for anti-communists
http://www.newswithviews.com/Craig/roberts10.htm



May God Bless the ACLU
It is my belief that, in order to bring others around to accepting your viewpoint, one must employ the method of gentle persuasion, and persistent faith that they will, in time, recognize the value of your position by agreeing with your point, at least, to a certain degree.

That philosophy, I believe, is sound based upon the assumption that your efforts have born some fruit. Having faith in something/someone tends to infer that you are accepting the possibility that a Power higher than oneself must be relied upon to overcome the inherent human weakness factor which all men possess.

I have long understood that there is, for me at least, a Power much higher than myself Who will lead me toward a greater perspective of my life than I might otherwise have, based upon my worldly perception.

I have absolute faith in that Power to change men for the better according to my interpretation of "better," and I believe that it is possible for those who believe in, and are a part of the ACLU to change. In time all men will change in some ways even when they do not desire to do so.

That being said, I, for one, have no faith whatsoever that the organization known as the ACLU has any intentions of reversing their present movement toward destroying the foundational principles given us by the original Framer's Constitution of the United States of America. They also do not intend to accept the fact that their is a Power higher than themselves Who created, as well as, operates this sphere we call home. They are certainly entitled to their opinion, but they do not have the right to wilfully attempt to destroy everything which has made the United States the most blessed nation upon the earth.

The Supreme Court, and many lower courts have been for over 150 years gradually usurping the powers given the people by the Framer's Constitution. The ACLU has also accomplished much destruction of our liberties in the name of the "rights" of the people through utilizing the system to bring about the changes they envision of a world devoid of a Higher Power. They have been quite successful because the people's representatives have not stood up, and demanded that this organization be declared un-American, unpatriotic, and an absolutely traitorous organization.

We have for too many years been led to believe that the Supreme Court, and lower court has the final word based upon their "interpretation" of the Constitution. This is totally erroneous, and we must demand that they be held accountable. This will only be accomplished when we stop talking about them, and start getting together to do something about them. They, and the many organizations like them must be destroyed, through the power of the people which is the "voice" of the people. There is no longer any hope that they will change so they need to be removed from our midst by whatever means still left for us to utilize within the true meaning of the law. I am, in no way, advocating violence because that is ultimately what they seek.

I believe that most Americans are together on those rights we all have collectively, and though we may be confused about individual rights, we must never let go of the fact that the people ultimately rule, and will rule once again when we return to the principles of "The Golden Rule" which is based upon the 10 commandments.

It is the ability, and Constitutional right of all men to accept or reject the notion that there is a Power higher than themselves, and they also have the right to be wrong. I believe it is wise to believe there is a God, and find you were right than it is to believe there is not, and find you were wrong, especially if your decision will be for eternity.

There is but one God, and One only Who rules over all things created, including man. There is but one Savior of all mankind, and that is Jesus Christ. We may all have a right to believe as we will that this is not true, but we would still be wrong whether we like it or not. I sincerely hope that most of us will recognize just how puny, and insignificant we are when it comes to the power we perceive to possess as it will not be long before He returns to assume His rule over that which He created.

So, as for myself I will trust in Him, and will do all that I can to bring about the destruction of the ACLU.


Lydia
Catholic's believe praying to Mary will get them into Heaven, ha-ha-ha, or praying to other saints will bring them good luck, ha-ha-ha-ha. Sorry all you folks, but, Jesus said 'I AM THE TRUTH AND THE LIGHT, NO MAN COME'TH TO THE FATHER BUT THRU ME'. So if your praying to Mary or the other Saints, don't hold your breath that they're listening.

ACLU
The American Communist Litigation Union has no interest in any “holy” book, be it the bible or anything else. The organization was founded by Communists and supported with Soviet money for many years. Communists have no interest in religion of any sort because they are atheists. The ACLU is now supported by your taxpayer dollars. This suit has NOTHING to do with getting equal access for the Moslems and it has everything to do with getting the camel’s nose through the tent door. Do you remember that term that the hero of Chappaquiddick likes to use so much; “stare decisis”? This is the mechanism that liberals use to slowly erode away the Constitution until it no longer has any meaning what-so-ever. It’s a process where “slums could be cleared using imminent domain” turned into “there is no private property anymore as long as any government body has an interest in taking it”. Once they get a ruling that any “holy” book may be used there is not much of a leap to no holy book should be used. In the meantime their organization would have been paid millions of dollars in fees for all the cases that were won, thus perpetuating the insanity.

The best way to combat this obscene organization is to remove their source of income. In this case NC should remove all “holy books” and oaths taken verbally and people SIGN a document which states that they are swearing by “oath and affirmation” that everything is true. This places the full power of the law on them if they lie, whether their “holy book” gives them permission or not. It also removes the ACLU grounds for a case and 1 side of the courtroom fire triangle.

PJ
re: PJ writes: Sunday, January, 21, 2007 5:26 AM
===========================================


Just watch the movie. What the he..
What can it hurt?

Muslim Civil Rights?
Now there's an oxymoron.

In I-Slam there are NO civil rights - only rules by which all must live or perish - and those rules are made by whatever Islamic cult happens to be be charge. Infidels beware! Convert or die.

Taking an oath on the Koran is tantamount to promising to follow sharia law, not our constitutional law.

And yes, I got the spelling right. I (Muslim) will Slam (bomb, behead, shoot, etc.) any who do not follow my perverted version of a quasi-religious cult - - but what is really a perverted, blood-thirsty, abusive political organization.

“The Death of Reason”

I have a link on my blog to a video titled, “The Death of Reason.” It is a long movie, but it covers a number of interesting topics. About a third of the way through, there is a history of Iraq and our interactions with them.

Please watch it. And then, let’s discuss if it is merely being a Muslims or Arabs that makes them “all” bad. Or is there another reason that makes them incapable of living in a peaceful society.

Both Christianity and Islam have histories. Both can be interpreted in completely wrong fashion. Both can be twisted to show violence as the core.

There have been Muslims and Arabs living here and sharing our American Values for a long time.

We share a world history with them too. That history is not so pleasant either.
Please, watch the video. The history section is only about 30 minutes long.

Goshawk
Right on you are! I got myself in such a dither about this I had to put up another article on my blog about this issue.
When are people going to get this main point, that the Koran is anathema to our Constitution? Talk about a slippery road as someone else posted! We are sliding into the ditch here. The ACLU is full of lunatics also. I wish we could boot them right out of this country.

Peppermint
Your exactly right! In fact the Qur'an demands complete obedience from the believer. And it's teachings are completely opposed to our laws laid down by our Constitution. It is impossible for a Muslim to accept or be faithful to the Constitution!

Anyone who thinks The Qur'an is "Just another Holy Book" Are out of their minds! Not only does it represent the Islamic religion, it is the Muslim Law! One in the same and cannot be separated. If one places his hand on the Qur'an and swears to uphold the Constitution. He is lying! Which is not a problem at all for a Muslim. The Qur'an not only gives the Muslim permission to lie to the infidels. It demands it when necessary.

The point of swearing..
The point of swearing an oath with one's hand on the Holy Book is not about committment to the book, but rather about the oath one is taking.
If I swear by what is holy to me, I am stating that the vow will be sacred to me "so help me God".

There's more to this
than a simple swearing on a "book". One can make the argument that swearing upon the Koran is better for a Muslim because it is his/her holy book.

The point is that the Koran does not uphold the "values" by which our nation was founded.

The Islamic religion does not uphold equal rights, and does not uphold the separation of church and state.

Therefore, the way I see it is if a Muslim swears upon the Koran, that individual does not swear to uphold the values of our country, but to the Islamic theocracy.

I should have said
"to you" instead of "for you"

Exactly, RspCt
Taking an oath on a book is not an exercise in acknowledging the heritage of a civilization, it is about swearing on something that is sacred for you.

If one truly wants to make something of this non-issue, he might bring up the fact that the Quran allows lying to unbelievers, something that is far more germane than slippery slope arguments about swearing on rocks.

Holy Book?
Taking an oath with your hand on the Bible is in essence saying "I swear by that which is holy to me." Should a non-Christian make a pledge swearing on a Bible, that is an oath taken on a book which is not holy to him. Thus, the oath is not as meaningful. Conversely, a Muslim swearing on the Koran is swearing on his holy book.
Incidentally, while you mention Judeo-Christian four times, you might want to take note that the Christian Bible is not The Holy Book for Jews.

Not surprising
The ACLU will support any group that is against America.

I hope everyone got a chance to watch the documentary on Fox news about Hezbella operating in North Carolina. The Islamic invasion is already penitrating our government. Witness Keith Ellison and Barack Obama in congress.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.