Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ISLAM: Gingrich’s concerns aren’t so crazy

Letter by Arne Herstad, Gig Harbor on Dec. 15, 2011 at 3:36 pm with 173 Comments »
December 16, 2011 9:22 am

Re: “Gingrich’s war on Shariah – something he utterly doesn’t understand” (column, 12-14).

Washington Post columnist David Gerson invites us to understand the craziness of Newt Gingrich’s suspicions toward Muslim Shariah law.

But what about the Turkish secularists, the heirs of Attaturk’s separation of powers during the 1920s? Are they crazy too? And what about the “desperate” efforts of Arab Springers in Cairo to maintain a balance against Islamists rushing into the vacuum left in the wake of Hosni Mubarak’s demise (TNT, 12-15)? Are they crazy?

Understanding what’s at stake is simple. Christ himself separated the spheres of authority saying, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” This decree is found reworded in our Bill of Rights by writers abundantly aware of abuses in our own cultural past that led to despotism.

Now this threat looms from another quarter, another culture, and seeks to metastasize into our own. Is it so very different from the horrors of our own Eurocentric past? Ask the Turks.

Leave a comment Comments → 173
  1. Ummmm…..Turkey and Egypt are dominantly Islamic countries, hence the threat from fundamentalist Muslims is real.

    America is dominantly Christian – any threat of theism will come from Dominionism, not Shariah.

  2. aislander says:

    Europe–until it created its own cultural and religious vacuum–was “dominantly Christian.” Now there are “no-go zones” in many cities (such as London and Paris) in which shariah holds sway. The left is working assiduously to hollow out our own culture so that it can be replaced with a socialistic paradise.

    That vacuum also favors the establishment of shariah in the same way it is appearing in Europe: not universally, but conquering area after area, rather like a metastatic disease…

  3. The article states that “It was not a casual theme. Gingrich Productions has generated a movie on the topic called “America at Risk: The War with No Name.” Gingrich has called for a “federal law that says Shariah law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States” – leaving the impression of a threat as real in Topeka as it is in Riyadh.”

    So Newt has a problem with Shariah Law, and would like to implement a U.S. Federal Law basically prohibiting it. That flies in the face of the very first Amendment of The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    But, you have to ask: Is Newt Gingrich really serious about his supposed fear of Shariah Law, or is he is just using it, as he has used other controversial issues, to gain headlines for himself?

    What does Gingrich really think about religion anyway? Who knows!

    What we do know is that he was raised a Lutheran, but then in graduate school changed to being a Southern Baptist. Most recently, March 29, 2009, because his new third wife is Catholic, Gingrich converted to Catholicism, but he has said it was because “The Pope made him do it!” (Not an exact quote mind you, but he has said he was inspired to become Catholic not by his new wife, but only because he saw Pope Benedict in person.)

    Chances are probably even-up that if he starts cheating on his current wife, the Catholic Calista, with an exotic Muslim girl, then Gingrich might just follow that path into his fourth marriage by converting to Islam. I would not be at all surprised, because that is the level of the integrity of Newt Gingrich.

    But still, I really and truly hope that Newt Gingrich is the Republican nominee for president, because that is the best way to insure four more years with President Obama.

  4. P.S. All that is in my first post is to say that: Gingrich’s concerns about Shariah law are not crazy at all. They are purely calculated to inspire fear in the gullible masses he hopes will continue to support his political career.

  5. SandHills says:

    As for me, no more Home Depot – it’s all Lowes from now on. Having lived in the most strict Sharial law country on the planet ( except for those in the Royal family) I can agree that we must all be alert to any religious dogma slipping into our everyday government institutions. Being overly opposed to having “In God We Trust” on our money, having “Christmas Trees” on government property might be a bit overboard to me but I can appreciate the sentiment of some who might be offended. At the very least, those who seem offended by anti-Islamic statements – especially about Sharia Law – need to go experience it first hand. Those who like to argue that we should be tolerant of any aspect of Sharia law are naive at best.

  6. aislander says:

    SandHills: That is a thoughtful take on the issue, but I believe we can’t fight something with nothing. If America (I believe Europe is lost) is to prevail in this clash of civilization against its sworn enemy, we must cherish and promote our own cultural symbols and institutions…

  7. Nothing like a false scare to take away the obvious fact that the Republicans have nothing in terms of a candidate for 2012.

  8. BlaineCGarver says:

    Izlam is a cancer. Allowed to take hold, it will consume the country..open your eyes and look around the world.

  9. Past presidential candidate Pat Paulsen once said, “”The only thing we have to fear is fear itself…and the boogeyman, of course”

    The thing people need to realize is that Islam is not the boogeyman, Newt Gingrich is! The Florida Family Association is!

    Oh yah, it’s a very “thoughtful take” to decide to shop at Lowe’s simply because Lowe’s gave into to the racial and religious bigotry of the Florida Family Association and knee-jerk reacted, by pulling its ads from TLC’s “All-American Muslim,” reality show.

    And what was the FFA’s main complaint about the show? It’s spokesman, “David Caton. An accountant turned rock-club owner, the author of a book about his pornography addiction, Mr. Caton had become a born-again Christian and the founder and sole employee of a fundamentalist activist group called the Florida Family Association.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/us/on-religion-a-one-man-war-on-american-muslims.html

    Caton’s big issue with the show American Muslim is that it did not show Muslim Terrorists. Caton “accused “All-American Muslim” of hiding “the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.” In an interview earlier this week on CNN, he reiterated the thesis, saying of the series: “They show the good side of all this. But they don’t show what’s going on underground.””

    What the heck is wrong with showing the GOOD SIDE of stuff. There are more than enough people out there showing the BAD SIDE of everything else!

    By that logic you could pull all the ads from Keeping Up With The Kardashians, because they don’t show what’s going on underground with the Armenians! (Wait-a-sec. Yes! Please do pull all the ads from the Kardashians. Please!)

    And by the way SandHills, why the backlash of “As for me, no more Home Depot -“?

    What the heck did Home Depot do to deserve that? That unjustified slap at Home Depot, in itself, really shows the irrational nature that fear puts into one’s decision making process. I mean really, what the heck did Home Depot have to do with any of this? Why punish Home Depot because of what Lowe’s did?

  10. Now there are “no-go zones” in many cities (such as London and Paris) in which shariah holds sway

    Please cite some documentation.

  11. And….there are “no-go zones” in almost every city (including Tacoma)

  12. I think Forrest Gump’s momma would say of Lowe’s, “Stupid is, as stupid does.”

    And of the comments on this blog, “Life is like a box of chocolates.” Some of them are nutty! The nutty ones are the one’s that are based upon unfounded fears of Islam.

    I remember the special episode of The West Wing just after the 911 attacks. It was titled “Isaac And Ishmael,” and it contained the lesson that “Extremist Muslims are to Muslims, as the KKK is to Christians.”

    Therefore, Lowe’s should pull its’ ads from any TV show that depicts normal average Christians, unless it also shows the KKK. That is the test that the Florida Family Association would use.

  13. Oh! And for those of you who didn’t get the meaning of “Isaac And Ishmael”, allow me to explain.

    For those of you who think all of Islam is made up of Muslim terrorists out to get you, just know that there are people out there who think all Christians are Klansmen!

    Are you a member of The Klan?

    If you are not, then why act like you are?

  14. from the Sun article:
    Dozens of posters had been put up — quickly removed by the council

    Musician Redzz, 24, added: “It’s a tiny minority of Muslims who want laws like this. People are entitled to their own views but shouldn’t try to tell other people how to live.”
    ….
    Shopping in High Road, Leyton, unemployed Abdul Rehman, 56, a Muslim originally from Pakistan, added: “They should go to a Muslim country if they want to live under those laws. It has no place in Britain.”
    Community leaders urged residents to ignore the “publicity stunt”.

    Council leader Chris Robbins said: “People shouldn’t get the wrong idea about our borough because a handful of small-minded idiots decided to deface our streets with ridiculous posters.”

    So, a few small-minded idiots put up some posters and you claim that Shariah law has been declared…

  15. Most US civil and family courts that will honor agreements and contracts under Jewish law or Catholic laws or other religious codes if voluntarily made by all parties, but they will not enforce or interpret those laws. In all cases cited by Newt (and others who make anti-Islam statements) as a reason to restrict Shariah Law, this is the reason the courts honored Shariah.

    When there is a conflict, US laws prevail. Picking on one religion, like Newt is doing, is not the American way.

  16. aislander – what you are citing is no different than the Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in NY that enforce gender segregation .

    http://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2011/10/18/women-ride-in-back-on-sex-segregated-brooklyn-bus-line/

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/jewish_bus_brooklyn_b110.html

    http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishFeatures/Article.aspx?id=242676

    And, just as is true in London and Paris – those religious zealots attempting to enforce their “laws” are acting illegally.

  17. And then there are those Hasidic rabbis putting up fliers ordering women not to wear tank tops in their South Williamsburg neighborhood…

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/hasidic-ny-community-divided-over-tank-tops-for-women/

    http://gothamist.com/2011/06/08/fashion_police_no_tank_tops_in_sout.php

    But just as is true with London and Paris Muslims, NY Jews are not supportive of the zealots:
    Baruch Herzefeld told the Brooklyn Paper that the group is intimidating women in the neighborhood, saying “These men think they are doing God’s work, but they are fanatics — everyone in Williamsburg hates them.”

  18. Okay, I am taking a poll here.

    If you are Muslim and a Terrorist, please identify yourself by entering a comment to that effect.

    If you are Christian and a Klan Member, also please identify yourself by posting a comment to that effect.

  19. LarryFine says:

    “So Newt has a problem with Shariah Law, and would like to implement a U.S. Federal Law basically prohibiting it. That flies in the face of the very first Amendment of The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution”

    Kooky to a whole new level.
    Let’s see if I get this right…(according to muck) kids having an organized prayer on school property violates “seperation of church and state”… BUT, allowing sharia law to be observed in U.S. courts is not ????

  20. “BUT, allowing sharia law to be observed in U.S. courts”

    Sharia law is observed in the U.S. courts how?????

    Another red herring to be pickled.

  21. muckibr – although you’ll get no responses, I’m betting that there are more Christians that are sympathetic to the Klan philosophy than Muslims sympathetic to terrorism in the United States.

    On a sidebar, since Lowes decided to make a scene about the American Muslim cable program, notice who came to the Muslim support?

    New York, NY, December 13, 2011 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed disappointment at Lowe’s Home Improvement for removing its advertising from TLC’s reality show “All-American Muslim” after the company received anti-Muslim complaints from a Christian conservative group.

  22. RW… “Another red herring to be pickled.”

    Very witty! Great comment! But, do you realize you’re getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed man?

    I did not see that about the ADL. Have to go do some more reading now. Thanks!

  23. All religions have religious laws.

    Sharia is Muslin Religious law.

    All are free to practice their religious laws as long as they do not conflict with US Secular Laws or interfere with the freedom of others to practice their religious laws.

    If you don’t like Sharia, or any other religious law, don’t follow it

  24. aislander says:

    A UK Telegraph poll found 40% of Muslims in the UK want sharia law IN the UK. Estimates put US Muslim population at 6 to 7 million. If half the percentage of US Muslims support sharia in the US as in the UK, that would make around 2 million who support sharia.

    I doubt there are 2,000 or 200,000 Christians who support the KKK, let alone 2 million, especially since the Klan is ostentatiously un-Christian. They gather in klaverns rather than churches and burn crosses rather than worship them; have wizards and kleagles rather than priests and ministers…

    BTW: A worldwide poll of Muslims shows that 80% want sharia…

  25. aislander says:

    xring, xring, xring: Sharia is civil law. Muslim nations operate under it…

  26. You know, I think part of the problem these guys have with Shariah Law, besides the fact that there are anti Muslim bigots denouncing it, is also the fact that a number of American Courts, including The Supreme Court of the United States, have The Ten Commandments posted somewhere on the premises of the court.

    So, these people see The Ten Commandments in Fed, State and Local courthouses, and somehow assume that means the court is ruled by Christian Law.

    At least two problems with that:

    1. The 1st Amendment clearly separates state from church, and that means Christian churches too!

    2. The Ten Commandments are Jewish Law, not Christian Law. (The 10 Commandments were handed down by God to Moses who was a Jew, not a Christian.)

    Now, if they would make the obvious, but still false connection that this supposed Christian country (which its really a non-denominational country which allows all faiths including; Christian, Jewish, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, etc…, which is ruled by Constitutional Law.) is being ruled in its courts by Jewish Law (the same laws of Moses that kind of rule Israel) maybe they would have an issue with that.

    No! Forget that. It’s only going to confuse them.

    Never mind!

  27. aislander says:

    I think it is a mistake to take on the sharia-law-in-US-courts question because, in the cases of which I am aware, sharia was used to define the terms of a contract between individuals.

    The courts shouldn’t be concerned with the criteria that individuals use to determine if a contract has been honored, unless there is something illegal about those terms.

  28. xring, xring, xring: Sharia is civil law. Muslim nations operate under it…

    Sharia law, (Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], “way” or “path”; also shariah, sharīʿah[1]) is the moral code and religious law of Islam. Sharia is derived from two primary sources of Islamic law: the precepts set forth in the Quran, and the example set by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah.

    You know, the neat thing about owning a computer is that you can look things up so that you don’t look like a complete fool.

  29. “I think it is a mistake to take on the sharia-law-in-US-courts question because, in the cases of which I am aware, sharia was used to define the terms of a contract between individuals.”

    A contract between individuals can implement all sorts of agreements with religious ideals. That is an agreement between parties and would have nothing to do with the law, at large.

  30. aislander says:

    So…do any nations operate under “Islamic law?”

    Housekeeping: RW writes: “A contract between individuals can implement all sorts of agreements with religious ideals. That is an agreement between parties and would have nothing to do with the law, at large.” Which restates–in more words–what I wrote…

  31. aislander says:

    See, here’s the deal, RW (so you don’t look more the fool), Islam is a political religion, so sharia IS religious law, as you so pedantically point out, but it is ALSO civil law AND criminal law. Whole nations use it as their “constitutions,” which is why it is at odds with OUR Constitution…

  32. With all dues respect, bBoy, your remark about Dominionism being more dangerous than Islamic evangelism is hogwash.

    Islamic extremists seem to be beyond “evangelical” in their desire to force their religion on others. Aislander’s observations about Europe are, IMO, very important, and I wish people would stop walking on eggshells about it. The waters of Islam will rush into the holes being carved out by socialist utopians. God help us.

  33. aislander says:

    My take, sozo, is that Europe no longer has a culture, only a history. Soon enough, unfortunately, it will again have a culture, but not its historical one (I lumped the various European cultures into one catchall for the sake of making my point).

    We need to put an accurate–and positive–history program back into the schools. Any society that allows its educational system to disparage it (especially in the lower grades) is suicidal. Combine that with continuing courses on the Constitution (making certain the words are defined in terms of their meaning to the Founders), and economics (with Keynes on the dung heap he deserves to occupy) and the country should be on its way to regaining its sanity…

  34. “Sharia law, (Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], “way” or “path”; also shariah, sharīʿah[1]) is the moral code and religious law of Islam.”

    Sorry, readers. Some people don’t get it the first time.

  35. RW… Your pal took1… wrote “RW would be more than happy to watch his wife get stoned to death if she should happen to get raped. He is for Sharia law since he has numerously professed a support for Sharia law on these very blog pages.”

    I wish took1… would have cited where it says that in Shariah Law or the Koran, because I found practically the same damn thing in The Holy Bible!

    In Deuteronomy 22:22-24 it basically says the same thing, but get this…

    If a woman is raped in the city, but does not cry out, then she and the man who raped her should be stoned to death. But, if a woman is raped in the country, it is assumed she cried out but no one would have heard her, so only the man is stoned to death.

    Now thats from THE BIBLE, not the Koran.

    How about that?

    Maybe Newt needs to propose a law like the anti-Shariah law, only call it the anti-Bible law!

  36. aislander says:

    So…RW…just to make certain that I understand your point: are you saying that sharia is only religious law, and does not pertain to anything else, such as–I don’t know–punishing thieves, rapists, and murderers (not to mention dhimmi)?

  37. took14theteam says:

    Muck… The difference is, one sect has evolved and moved forward, where the other is still stuck in the 7th century. Please provide a link where the christian side has stoned someone recently. I can find numerous links where the Islamic side has done that very thing.

    GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  38. bobcat1a says:

    We must immediately make a law prohibiting the worship of any extraterrestrial being who possesses more than two arms, has green skin, and speaks out of his anus. Such a threat must be foreclosed immediately.

  39. aislander says:

    Don’t worry for a moment, bc1: nobody’s worshiping you…

  40. bobcat1a, come on now. “make a law prohibiting the worship of any extraterrestrial being” No need to bring the Scientologists into this! We have enough to deal with when comparing Shariah Law with Old Testament Bible Law. Let’s try to stick with the current topic for now, okay?

    Fir instance, say someone came up with a facetious argument like “one sect has evolved and moved forward, where the other is still stuck in the 7th century.” to distinguish between fundamentalist Christians and what they think modern day American Muslims actually practice.

    Now, where is it that the fundamentalist Christians get their justification to deny gay and lesbian Americans their rights?

    Oh yah! That’s right… Leviticus, in the Old Testament of The Holy Bible, right there with Deuteronomy.

    And, when was the last time you ever heard of a gay man being tied to a tree an stoned here in the United States of America by good old Christian boys? (Or is that Christian Good Old Boys?) Just a few months ago! Are you sure? I think you may be right.

    The Christian fundamentalists have to go back to the Old Testament, because they won’t find anything they can use in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John in The New Testament to justify their outdated discrimination, because Jesus NEVER said anything about stoning anyone. Jesus was all about acceptance, tolerance and forgiveness, but that’s not considered “Fundamentalist Christianity”.

    And, Newt Gingrich is NOT saying he’d make new laws to change how they do things in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran. He’s saying he wants laws to prevent Shariah Law here in the U.S. But really, when is the last time anyone heard of a Muslim stoning in the U.S.? A lot longer ago than the last Christian Gay stoning, that is for sure!

    Truth!

  41. aislander says:

    So…you’re tarring all Christians for the sins of a very few? I really can’t remember hearing about a Christian “honor killing;” only Muslim ones. Using your precedent, I guess we can blame all Muslims for the sins of somewhat more than a very few…

  42. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    You know, the neat thing about owning a computer is that you can look things up so that you don’t look like a complete fool.

    Yes, Kardy, but unfortunately you discovered that “neat“ little thing far too late.

  43. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Don’t worry for a moment, bc1: nobody’s worshiping you…

    LMAO!

  44. Posted on Advocate.com March 20, 2011 12:15:00 PM ET

    Elderly Gay Man Stoned to Death in Pa.

    A young Pennsylvania man who claims a gay senior made unwanted sexual advances toward him said the Old Testament instructed him to beat the victim to death with a sock full of rocks.

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/03/20/Elderly_Gay_Man_Stoned_to_Death_in_Pa/

  45. Honor Killing
    Published 1, December 19, 2010
    -Submitted by David Drumm

    We have previously discussed Islamic honor killings, here and here. We have previously discussed an Indian honor killing here. We can now add a Christian honor killing to our rogue’s gallery.

    A newlywed couple was murdered by the brides’s older brother, to restore the family honor. The dishonor? The husband was Muslim, the wife was Christian.

    http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2010/12/another-honor-killing.html

  46. We don’t have to worry about Sharia law….we have to worry about the Christian version.

  47. Thursday, September 29, 2011
    Another Christian honor killing, and where’s the media?

    Like Pastor like son.

    After a Houston pastor’s wife was shot execution-style in her garage last year, police suspected her husband.

    They later came to charge the pastor, his son and the woman who was dating both men.

    http://answeringchristians.blogspot.com/2011/09/another-christian-honor-killing-and.html

  48. Tuesday, April 19, 2011
    Dad kills daughter’s girlfriend and girlfriend’s mom … Christian honor killing?

    A man upset about his high school-age daughter’s relationship with a woman killed the girlfriend and her mother in a Southeast Austin home Monday night, culminating a months-long feud between the families, police said Tuesday.

    http://coreysviews.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/dad-kills-daughters-girlfriend-and-girlfriends-mom-christian-honor-killing/

    http://www.statesman.com/news/local/police-dad-shot-2-women-over-daughters-relationship-1417884.html

  49. aislander says:

    Thanks for providing those anecdotes, muck–wonder where they got the idea. Got any statistical data to indicate how widespread this menace might be?

  50. aislander says:

    murigen writes: “We don’t have to worry about Sharia law….we have to worry about the Christian version.”

    I think you would agree that applying religious law to secular situations is indicative of a theocracy. Where are Christians applying religious law to secular society?

    I can give you numerous examples of where Muslims do that…

  51. aislander writes “I really can’t remember hearing about a Christian “honor killing;” only Muslim ones.”

    Out of the goodness of my heart, to help with the remedial education of aislander, I post four links to: not one (1), not two (2), but three (3) examples of reported Christian “honor killings”

    and now aislander wants “statistical data to indicate how widespread this menace might be?”

    As aislander’s lil’ buddy Larry… said at “http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2011/12/13/writer-fails-to-recognize-effective-methods-of-protest/#comment-189954

    “We’re not your research monkey(s)… find your own…”

    But, at least one stat for aislander is that I provided 300% more incidences than he/she admitted he/she knew about before.

    aislander could have at least said “Thanks for the info!” No more free info for you!!!

  52. aislander says:

    muck wrote: “aislander could have at least said ‘Thanks for the info!'”

    I wrote: “Thanks for providing those anecdotes, muck–wonder where they got the idea.”

    Seems that I already have…

  53. anecdotes?

  54. Aislander, Sharia is both civil and religious because Muslims do not separate religion form government.

    For a list of countries that operate under Islamic Law see:
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_countries_use_Sharia_Law

    Not only is Sharia law at odds with OUR Constitution, it is subordinate to our Laws.

    For example, Sharia may allow Honor Killings, But the killer will still be tried in our civil courts and punished under our secular laws.

    Took – more like one has been abandoned and replace with secular civil law.

    Here’s a little test – With out looking it up, How many of the 10 Commandments are included in US civil law?

    Muck – I thank Aislander is suffering from that Reagan disease.

  55. aislander says:

    Yeah, anecdotes, muck. As in “anecdotal evidence,” a synonym for “not persuasive…”

  56. Would youse guys be a little more careful with italics, please?

    from aislander “Got any statistical data to indicate how widespread this menace might be?”

    Gee aislander….you provided a link to a story that included references to anecdotes of clergy putting up a dozen fliers in a neighborhood of London (ignoring the bulk of the story where the neighbors – including Muslims – found the fliers annoying so they took them down) and links to stories that referenced that story without any background and yet you dismiss stories linked to Hasidic and Christian fundamentalists trying to impose Levitical and Mosaic Law upon all of America…..

    And yes sozo – IN AMERICA – there is far more danger from Dominionism because:
    1) there are more Dominionists that rabid Islamists in America
    2) Fundamentalist Christians are far more likely to be swayed by Dominionist rhetoric than Islamic rhetoric.

  57. Meanwhile, Gingrich claims sexual attraction is a choice
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57343861-503544/newt-gingrich-being-gay-is-a-choice-for-some/

    And…..as a serial adulterer on marriage number 3 (each time changing his religious affiliation), Gingrich signs the “marriage is sacred” oath
    http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Anti-gay-marriage-pledge-amendment/2011/12/16/id/421247

    Gotta love this guy! I mean, no politician can be accused of having too much integrity but WOW! He sets a completely new standard for pandering without intent.

  58. beerBoy, but you have to consider that Newt has to make up for years of having an integrity-deficit.

  59. took14theteam says:

    bB, my next comment will be another one that you will have nothing to disagree with. Going to attempt to stop the italics. Stay tuned….

  60. took14theteam says:
  61. took14theteam says:

    Did it work?

  62. took14theteam says:

    Nope. I guess only the person that forgot to close the italics can possibly close it down stream. As you were.

  63. harleyrider1 says:

    Very simply this:

    Lowe’s will not support those or their relatives that participated in the killing of innocent Americans at work in the New York twin towers.

    And Lowe’s stepped up to the plate and publicly made that commitment.

    Until we see those that practice their Sharial Islamic beliefs protest and march in our Country against the killing of people in the name of Islam – until we actually see them make a stand against – they only stand for.

    The rest of us remember and will always remember. Certainly Lowe’s did many years later.

  64. took14 – I’m thinking that closing the italics only works if it is done in the post immediately following the one that left the italics open.

    harley – Suggesting that all Muslims or their relatives are responsible for 9/11 is just inane.

    Furthermore – your claim that Muslims have not spoken out against the Islamist terrorists is willful ignorance.

    Both demonstrate that your opinions on this subject are colored by bigotry.

    Lowe’s made a business decision to avoid controversy. This wasn’t a stance for anything except the bottom line. Unfortunately for them, it was the wrong choice as it has made even more controversy.

  65. Putting blame where blame is due, the italics were left open by
    Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:
    Dec. 16, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    Vox, please be more careful. These italics only threads are annoying.

  66. harley… I hate to disagree with you, so I won’t. Let me just propose an alternative if you will…

    Maybe the decision by Lowe’s to pull their ads from “All American Muslim” had more to do with the simple fact that white people probably buy more stuff from Lowe’s than brown people do.

    Those five (5) Muslim families were most likely not even related in any way to any of the 911 Terrorists. I mean, there are a whole lot of Muslims in this world, and they are not all related to each other. Weren’t most of the 911 Terrorist Muslims from countries like the UAE, Egypt, Lebanon, and actually most of them were from Saudi Arabia, right? The Muslims on All American Muslim are from… where? Oh yah… AMERICA! Dearborn Michigan to be precise. (Has not Michigan suffered enough?)

    They will never admit it, but I would be willing to bet you TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS that the Lowe’s decision was more of a business decision that a patriotic action.

    Now, excuse me while I try to go hit-up Mitt Romney for a $10k loan.

    (Damn Italians! Why did they ever bring their >> italics << over to our country in the first place! I'm boycotting DiGiorno Pizza until the italics stop!)

  67. Aislander, specifically? Abortion and birth control. You also have proselytizing in the military with some commanders inserting their Christian beliefs into military activities. Not to mention the Christian influence in the federal government. Hell just look at the Republican candidates for President.

  68. harley… you really got me thinking about Muslims and 911 and Lowe’s, so I did some net surfing and found this really interesting short article. I’ll just clip out the highlights here, but really recommend you take a moment to go to the link and check it out

    Remembering the Muslims who were killed in the 9/11 attacks
    Sunday, 11 September 2011

    .. 28 Muslims … died in the twin towers of the World Trade Center, in addition to three Muslims who were among the passengers on two hijacked planes; … representing 1.07 percent of the total number of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, which is the same percentage of Muslims in the United States.



    The most famous Muslim victim is the only Arab among all 9/11 victims, the Yemeni Abdul Salam Mallahi, who worked at the Marriott Hotel in World Trade Center. He was very brave and helped people escape the building. His body has never been found.

    http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/09/11/166286.html

    I did not know that American Muslims make up only 1.07% of the population in the U.S. That’s really an easy number of potential customers for Lowe’s to simply write-off. Heck, they could even post signs at their store saying “No Muslims Allowed” and not lose that much in sales. Or, could they?

  69. aislander says:

    testing

  70. aislander says:

    murigen: Let’s think for a minute: IS it possible to be opposed to abortion without a religious rationale? Lefty secularists are ALWAYS insisting that they can form a coherent moral framework without a religious basis, so it SHOULD be possible to do that. Hmmm. What to think; what to think?

    But let’s get to the root of the question: Does any of that (and I’m not sure about the banning of birth control–perhaps you can provide a contemporary example of where government does that. And we ARE talking about government, right?) result in an establishment of religion by government? I can provide numerous examples of Islamic nations that proudly proclaim themselves exactly that–Islamic.

  71. aislander says:

    xring writes: “Aislander, Sharia is both civil and religious because Muslims do not separate religion form government…”

    …which is exactly the point I have been trying to drive home to the impervious RW.

    As for your last line in that comment: You are a sad little person.

  72. aislander says:

    As for proselytizing, murigen, the Federal government itself has done that, AFTER the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Northwest Ordinance, doncha know…

  73. “And yes sozo – IN AMERICA – there is far more danger from Dominionism because:
    1) there are more Dominionists that rabid Islamists in America
    2) Fundamentalist Christians are far more likely to be swayed by Dominionist rhetoric than Islamic rhetoric.”

    But neither one of these things matter as much as the fact that Islamists make no distinction between religion and government and it is they who are determined to conquer the world and convert it to a theocracy.

    As for all the back and forth about Muslims and Muslim extremists, and yes, I suppose there is a difference, does it really matter all that much when the latter have a worldwide network bent on destroying the west?

    There is no parallel in the Christian community.

  74. Aislander… I assume the issue is religious law becoming part of our laws. Not the government establishing the law, necessarily, but religion being coded in the law.

    Yes, one can be against abortion without religion, but one should not be trying to outlaw abortion if they support the Constitution. The only ones I hear of who are legislating extreme abortion control are the religious.

    And while there are no laws at this moment that outlaw birth control there are several states that have legislation or initiatives pending, the most recent was Mississippi with a life begins at conception initiative that was defeated. That would have outlawed many if not most methods of birth control.

    Many in this country want a theocracy, their theocracy, a Christian theocracy and the right Christian theocracy. They are taking one tiny step at a time and each time they win we’re one tiny step closer. If that isn’t bad enough another bunch want a fascist police state, they making much greater headway there.

  75. LarryFine says:

    Watching Aislander eat the 2 _nos’ lunch has definately been entertaining.

    .
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/federal-appeals-court-considers-sharia-law/

  76. aislander says:

    But…murigen…the Constitution says NOTHING about writing religiously-derived principles into law. Anyway, even if that is happening, how is that establishing a theocracy or establishing a state religion (two different things, actually)?

    The writers of the First Amendment participated in practicing religion under Federal auspices, as well as promoting religion in the newer territories. Most of the states had their own state religions. All this was AFTER the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    And you don’t believe Americans should oppose abortion because SOME of them do so for religious reasons? You would make a first-class despot, mur…

  77. LarryFine says:

    Bottom line, if you don’t believe the muslims want Sharia to be observed in U.S. courts, then you shouldn’t be worried about Newt shoring up the ‘ol “seperation” clause. ;)

  78. “Sharia law, (Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], “way” or “path”; also shariah, sharīʿah[1]) is the moral code and religious law of Islam.”

    Indisputable fact. The rest of the inflamatory rhetoric is added by Christians that can’t “live and let live”

  79. aislander says:

    So…RW…Muslims DON’T govern their “Islamic Republics” under sharia? I’m certain that would be news to the citizens of those nations…

    Please respond: I’m aquiver with anticipation! And take a stab at a different “response” than the one you’ve repeated several times…

  80. Okay, did anyone read the my post at 8:45 AM?

    If not, please read it again.

    Now, if ANYONE thinks that 1.07 percent of the U.S. population, that is Muslim, can IMPOSE Shariah law upon the other 98.93 percent of the U.S. population, then I say to you … that person is a complete idiot!

  81. aislander says:

    I specifically said, in my first post near the beginning of the thread:
    “That vacuum also favors the establishment of shariah in the same way it is appearing in Europe: not universally, but conquering area after area, rather like a metastatic disease…”

  82. “As for all the back and forth about Muslims and Muslim extremists, and yes, I suppose there is a difference, does it really matter all that much when the latter have a worldwide network bent on destroying the west?”

    I SUPPOSE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!!!????

    Wow…..That is kinda like saying I suppose there is a difference between Dominionists who want to impose Levitical and Mosaic Codes on the US and erase all boundaries between government and religion and impose their vision of “Pax America” upon the rest of the world and the rest of the Christians but does it matter that much?

    Do yourself a favor and do some research on Dominionism and/or Christian Reconstructionism and find out what they really want. And then, either do some research about Islam or stop spewing your ignorance on the internet.

    Wow…..and to think I used to think you were a somewhat reasonable fundamentalist Christian conservative….

  83. I suppose there is a difference between Westboro Baptists and the rest of Christianity….but, really, does it make a difference?

  84. ANYONE who thinks that 1.07 percent of the U.S. population, that is Muslim, can IMPOSE Shariah law upon the other 98.93 percent of the U.S. population is a complete idiot!

    All of you who fear that Shariah Law can be implemented here in the U.S., please come to the front of the class NOW and get your pointy hat!

  85. Damn Italians! Why did they ever bring their >> italics << over to our country in the first place!

    BOYCOTT DiGiorno Pizza and Super Mario until the italics stop!

  86. LarryFine says:

    Yea, Westboro is lead by a democrat bB… like J.Wright and his ilk… you guys are pitiable how you are so transparent with your double standards and contradictions.
    .
    Hey Muck… what % of the U.S. is gay ??? (I know you will be willfully ignorant where I’m going with this) LMAO.

  87. LarryFine says:

    Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr. (born November 13, 1929) is an American pastor heading the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), an independent Baptist church based in Topeka, Kansas. Phelps is a disbarred lawyer, founder of the Phelps Chartered law firm, and a former civil rights activist.

    Phelps’s followers frequently picket various events, such as military funerals, gay pride gatherings, high-profile political gatherings, university commencement ceremonies, performances of The Laramie Project, mainstream Christian gatherings and concerts with which he had no affiliation

    Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times

    Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party presidential primary election.[35] In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a “gay bill of rights” and stated that homosexuality was not something that “society should affirm”.Kooky

    wiki

  88. LarryFine says:

    Muck_nos… it’s the 1.07% … it’s their lawyers in CAIR and the ACLU. But you already knew that.

    BTDT huh ?

  89. RE Aislander’s, DEC. 17, 2011 at 10:30 AM

    Aislander, DEC. 16, 2011 at 4:16 PM: “xring, xring, xring: Sharia is civil law. Muslim nations operate under it.”

    Aislander, DEC. 16, 2011 at 6:06 PM: “So . . . do any nations operate under ’Islamic law?’”

    Aislander, DEC. 17, 2011 at 3:16 PM “. . . Shaira IS religious law . . . but it is ALSO civil law AND criminal law”

    RE Aislander – the 1st Amendment prohibits the establishment of a “federal auspices of religion, as well as any promoting of religion”

    L-F the only thing AI has been eating is his own words.

  90. Writing laws that are heavily dependant on a religion is a back door way of the government recognizing a religion. You know what religion that law would be geared toward. You know that a minority religion would not benefit from the same legislative action. How is that creating a theocracy? By one step at a time. The more religious law is codified the more religion runs our lives. We become that which our founding fathers opposed, what they warned about, just by not recognizing what is happening. By rolling over, by turning away, by sticking our collective heads in the sand. It’s happening every day and not just with religion. Gingrich and the rest of them (both sides of the isle) either know what they are doing or don’t understand just how far off the track they have gotten. Either way they need to go.

    As for Americans not opposing abortion. You can oppose it all you want through things like education but not through legislation.

  91. Murigen, what would you say if someone suggested that…

    1. The open display of Ten Commandments be removed from any and all U.S. court houses.

    2. An Amendment to the constitution be ratified to prohibit the display of any religious oriented holiday display on any and all government properties.

    3. A law be passed to removed the words “In God We Trust” from all U.S. currency.

    What would be your reaction to that?

  92. LF – I suppose we should blame the Republicans for the wing bat who changed his name to Pro-Life and has been a candidate for State Legislature (2004), Governor (2006), US Senate (2008), Fire Commissioner (2007), Governor (2010)

    Check out his website…..http://prolifeidaho.com/about/ He left the Mormon Church because “the Church would not accept person-hood status for the preborn child.”

  93. Gee bBoy, didn’t mean to evoke all CAPS from you. I hope you’re calmer now. And you’re right, I’m no expert on Dominionists and their objectives as, apparently, you are.How DO you find the time to be an expert in both Islam AND Domminionism?

    Look, I’ll start worrying about Dominionism when they have a worldwide network that is totally committed to killing and destroying my home.

    For the record, the reason I said “I suppose there’s a difference” is because unlike you, I do not presume to know the pulse of Islam, but if it is to abide by the Q’ran, then I “suppose” some of them are sympathetic with their extremist brothers.

    As for your disillusionment with me personally, I know how you feel. I once thought you were among the more thoughtful liberals here. Disappointment sucks.

  94. On a day-to-day basis I am more worried about the internal Dominionist threat to our nation than the mainly external threat of Islamic terrorism. Both are severe problems for our society, but Dominionism is ignored too often or accepted as a legitimate path by many Christians (including a majority of the Republican presidential candidates) while Islamic issues are dealt with internally as big media events and hyperbole, like this Shariah law stuff.

    As for religious laws taking over our country, I nervously laugh as I read the far right Christians quake when they think some religion may get a law passed that is included in their moral and religious code. I then look at all of the defenses people present to the laws that exclude gay marriage. The only defense of those laws that are presented are based on religion, nothing more.

    I keep asking how gay amrriage would harm other peole not involved, how it might hurt our democracy, or how it might hurt the peop,e involved in the relationship (the three tests the Supreme Court has given to decide when government can restrict marriage as a civil right), and there is silence.

    Save your defense of anti-gay marriage laws from this thread. I am not hijacking this thread for thaty issue. I only bring it up to show the hypocrisy of the far right when it wants to inject religion into our laws, but says it is a threat when others want to do the same.

    Injecting religious beliefs as the basis for any of our laws is a path for the destruction of our democracy, not matter what religion does it.

  95. On a day-to-day basis I am more worried about the internal Dominionist threat to our nation than the mainly external threat of Islamic terrorism. Both are severe problems for our society, but Dominionism is ignored too often or accepted as a legitimate path by many Christians (including a majority of the Republican presidential candidates) while Islamic issues are dealt with internally as big media events and hyperbole, like this Shariah law stuff.

    As for religious laws taking over our country, I nervously laugh as I read the far right Christians quake when they think some religion may get a law passed that is included in their moral and religious code. I then look at all of the defenses people present to the laws that exclude gay marriage. The only defense of those laws that are presented are based on religion, nothing more.

    I keep asking how gay marriage would harm other peole not involved, how it might hurt our democracy, or how it might hurt the peop,e involved in the relationship (the three tests the Supreme Court has given to decide when government can restrict marriage as a civil right), and there is silence.

    Save your defense of anti-gay marriage laws from this thread. I am not hijacking this thread for thaty issue. I only bring it up to show the hypocrisy of the far right when it wants to inject religion into our laws, but says it is a threat when others want to do the same.

    Injecting religious beliefs as the basis for any of our laws is a path for the destruction of our democracy, not matter what religion does it.

  96. took14theteam says:

    Man, you must be worried, you posted your diatribe twice….

  97. It’s like New York, New York or Walla Walla…

    It’s written so nice he posted it twice!

    Thank you tuddo, and GREAT JOB as always!!!

  98. took14theteam says:

    Clever one muckibr.

    :-)

  99. Sorry, my computer locked up when I pushed “submit”, so I logged back in and the comment was nowhere on the thread. I reposted it, to my current chagrin.

    And, took14, a diatribe is in the mind of the beholder. I think there are many on this thread and others who are more accomplished at diatribes.

    I did not use abortion as an example as laws based on religion, since I do agree with aislander that there are many legitimate secular concerns about abortion that have nothing to do with religion, unlike prohibiitions on gay marriage. However, unlike him, I do not believe our forefathers made laws based on religion, or if they did, they did not stand.

    These were, for the most part, secularists to the extreme, and rationality and science trumped religion almost every time. At the Supreme Court level, laws were not allowed to be defended on the basis that it was the Christian thing to do. Just look at Virginia’s stab at defending mixed-race marriage prohibitions. The Supreme Court blasted them for bringing religion into the court.

    So far, science has prevailed over religious extremists. Those of us who think that laws should not be based on religious views look to see if science can tell us anything new about when a fertilized egg becomes a “human” under our laws.

    The best estimate continues to be the third trimester, so that is what we base most of our laws on and not the “every sperm is sacred” notion of the Catholic Church or some variation by other religions.

  100. “Man, you must be worried, you posted your diatribe twice….”:

    Sayeth the #2 moniker of the person obsessed with who is who.

  101. Mickibr
    My response to removing ‘In God We Trust’ from U.S. currency is “E pluribus unum.”

    Sozo,
    Look up Knights of Malta and start worrying.

  102. took14theteam says:

    Who is the #1 moniker?

  103. aislander says:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Gee, xring, I really don’t see anything in the wording of the First Amendment about prohibiting the promotion or celebration of religion–only about the establishment of one for the entire nation.

    The fact that the states were able to have established religions while the framers of the Constitution still ran the Federal government belies your assertion.

    Besides, those same Founders both observed religious services under the auspices of the Federal government AND promoted religion. And THEY should have known what they meant when writing the 1st Amendment. SHEESH! Give it up, man!

  104. aislander says:

    And, xring: you got me. I admit it. I didn’t write that sharia is ONLY civil law. I didn’t write that because that is not what I was saying, but you seem to believe I was. Whatever floats your flotilla, x…

    Here it is: Sharia is not ONLY religious law. Again, SHEESH!

    Now get outta here, you knucklehead…

  105. Pacman33 says:

    tuddu’s computer locked up, preventing L.E.F.T.T text code conversion ~
    “I only bring it up to show the hypocrisy of the far left’s advocating to inject Islamic religion into our laws and attacking the right for merely objecting to an inclusion of religious influence into our laws.”

    Would the left have an opposite reaction and lend their support if the right was, instead, attempting to assist or promote the Muslim’s establishment of aspects of Shaira within U.S. borders and jurisdiction of our Constitution?

    The double standard here stems from the left’s radical extremism and intransigent hate for Christianity and the U.S. that has evoked the left’s past myriad of sympathetic benevolence for their like minded Islamic comrades.

  106. aislander says:

    Good point, Pm33. I have thought for quite some time that the left has been trying–and, unfortunately, largely succeeding–in hollowing out our culture by attacking its religious and moral underpinnings, so that it can all be replaced with the Church of Government wherein the Sacraments of Socialism can be observed…

  107. Pacman33 says:

    sozo said ~

    “Islamists make no distinction between religion and government and it is they who are determined to conquer the world and convert it to a theocracy.”

    Well put sozo. It would be hard to match the accuracy and pertinency of your statement in regard this topic.

  108. Pacman33 says:

    Exactly ais. The leftist’s disingenuous alarms of internal threats of destruction to our nation by Fundamentalist Christians is the typical “I’m rubber, you’re glue” antics to provide cover for themselves.

    The leftis’s projection is clearly meant to draw attention away from their vacancy of morals. Mostly is an attempt to cloak a threat that historically dwarfs the danger of their Islamic allies.

    Secularism has killed and oppressed far more people than religion ever has. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Marx and more were all anti religion. They were especially anti-Christianity because the Christian message is one that stresses the importance of the individual. That message runs counter to the “sacrifice yourself for the privileged few”. A message that Leftist Tyrants have preached observing the Sacraments of Socialism within the Churches of Government.

  109. aislander says:

    It isn’t just the moral and religious realms that have been attacked by the left, it is also the things we have in common that have united us culturally. I think THAT’S what multiculturalism is really about. Those little commonalities that identify us as members of the same club are being stripped away from us in various ways.

    Granted, we all belong to other clubs, based on background, occupation, ideology, wealth, and class (historically, wealth and class have not been synonymous in America), and so on, but we have all been members of the American club. The left has been trying to “raise” (or at least alter) consciousness so that we become more aware of the things that separate us than those that unite us. The left’s addiction to the promotion of crises is the tool of choice for this purpose.

    The current economic crisis, which really should cause a reaction against collectivism, is being used by the left to agitate for MORE government action: the very thing that has bankrupted Europe and is bankrupting us. We on the right MUST win the war of ideas on this front to garner some good from all this and restore the essence of America: freedom and opportunity.

  110. LarryFine says:

    beerBub… you brought up Westboro, not me.

  111. aislander says:

    LarryFine: I strongly suspect that Phelps and Westboro are a false-flag operation designed to discredit believers.

    Phelps has a background as a lefty and civil-rights activist; hardly what would lead one to be so ostentatiously intolerant of one of the left’s favored groups…

  112. LarryFine says:

    Would make perfect sense.

  113. Aislaner,
    Nice Try, but your 12/16/11 @ 4:16 PM (“Sharia is civil law.”) clearly shows no indication that you thought Sharia was anything but civil law.

    The truth is Sharia is neither civil or religious law, rather it is just The Law because as I pointed out Muslims do not separate civil, criminal, and religious law just as do not separate Religion from the State.

    As far ‘state established religions’ They were banned by the 1st Amendment because of Article VI of the Constitution which states:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.

  114. aislander says:

    xring: That’s not even a nice try. I’ve posted on this subject numerous times and am perfectly aware that Islam, a political religion, encompasses all aspects of personal and civic life. I really don’t know why making this “point” is SO important to you, when it certainly isn’t to me. The topic dealt with the extent of sharia’s authority and, someone (RW, I think) was asserting that sharia affected ONLY religious life. My point was that it extended into civic life, as well. THAT’S why I stated it the way I did (which I now deeply regret because of all the keystrokes I am expending trying to explain the obvious!).

    And quit torturing the Constitution, when the actions of the Founders and the Tenth Amendment scream that you are wrong, wrong, wrong!

    Now go away and be a sad little person without bothering me…

  115. Aislaner and Pacman
    Those of us who actually defend the Constitution will not oppose the promotion or spread of any religion as long as it is not government doing the promoting and the religion does not violate the Constitution.

    And the left’s opposition is not Christianity, but to the attempts by some Christians to impose their beliefs the Country and Her Citizens both of which violate the Constitution.

  116. aislander says:

    God, xring! The people who WROTE the flippin’ document promoted religion and advocated spreading it!

  117. Aislander’s comment about ” the Church of Government wherein the Sacraments of Socialism can be observed… ” is very significant. It has long been my observation, mostly from within the world of education, that this is exactly what’s afoot. As Christians prepare to celebrate the coming of the Messiah, secular humanists look to government to be their personal savior, which is why, of course, when government fails them, they take to the streets as they are doing in Europe right now. Scripture tells us over and over to not put our faith in princes of this world, but we do, and the result is always the same. Too bad some people can’t seem to make this less-than-gigantic intellectual leap.

  118. Okay, I looked up Knights of Malta. Not worried. You are not serious, right?

  119. Afterthought. Though those who voted Obama into office frequently try to deny this (how poor Chris Matthews has tried to get out from under his leg-tingling remark!) — many behaved as though Obama was a sort of messianic figure. It was quite evident in most of the film footage on election night that the man had been elevated to the stature of savior, that his “hope and change” mantra had won him the election. What were Oprah’s words again?

    Here’s one of the passages from the Bible that I think quite significant as we approach another election: “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save. When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing.

    I do not wish to see the president’s demise, in fact I wish him good health and a long life. I DO however wish to see his exit from the oval office, and I hope people don’t let their pride prevent them from seeing him for the disappointment he’s been. Mortal man indeed.

  120. aislander says:

    Agreed, sozo. I think the safest person to elect to a powerful office is someone of whom we are a little skeptical, and the most dangerous someone whom we trust implicitly. We should surely do our civic duty of carefully overseeing the actions of the former, while allowing the latter freedom to operate without supervision.

    Hell, we might even elect someone about whom we know nothing (or about whom we choose to know nothing…

  121. LarryFine says:

    Now that would be downright kooky. ;)

  122. For those who will demand “proof” of my comments re the messianic fervoor around Obama, here’s one of he things Oprah said about him, along with this quote on election night when asked her feelings about his election: “I’m vibrating.” Wow. Really?

    Here’s the other remark:

    And what I saw with Barack Obama was something that was transcendent and I felt transformational for me as a human being and for this country. And I only pray in the deepest part of my being that America will rise to this moment. And I feel that what he was able to offer us as individual citizens and as a united country was something that we have never seen before. I really, I think it’s the most powerful thing I’ve ever experienced.”

    Aislander, your point is hugely important, but I have little hope that folks here will fully appreciate what you are saying. The fervor around Obama was absurd and quite dangerous. We must understand that real people,with warts, are running for office. Each has strengths and weaknesses, all are human and subject to human error. Obama was put on such a high pedestal (and for the record I don’t think he objected at al) that he was bound to disappoint.

    And before anyone jumps up to ask if I was generous with regard to Clinton’s human foibles, let me say that his dalliances, while more than a little disgusting, were not the issue, nor for me anyway. The fact that he lied to the people he was serving was the issue.

  123. aislander says:

    sozo: Secularists accuse believers of many things, primarily of believing in myths. If you haven’t encountered Georges Sorel, you may be interested in his take on the political utility of myths, as well as his influence on Marxists, and–surprise!–fascists. Those of us who are familiar with the history of the left do not find that to be at all an odd pairing…

    In any case, myth making (and myth believing) is time honored on the left…

    I enjoyed the PBS series “Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth,” but, given what I have subsequently learned about Bill Moyers, the host of the series, I’d like to take another look at it for evidence of a Sorelian angle. It may not be there, but then again, given the source…

  124. Aislander you knowledge of the Constitution would not even fill a thimble.

    Your lack of intelligence and historical knowledge is less than the inverse of our over blow ego.

    So just totter off and try to come up with some more names which is the only thing you have left.

    The PEOPLE can support religion. The GOVERNMENT may not..

    Sozo, “trust not earthly princes” So me should throw out the Constitution and govern according to the Bible.

    Hate to tell you this but the Founding Fathers would not agree.

  125. aislander says:

    Instead of holding a seance, xring, to determine what the Founders would or would not agree to, why not take an HONEST look at what they DID?

    And while we’re in the mode of examining reality, why don’t you SHOW me where I’ve been wrong, rather than hurling feeble insults (which is all one CAN hurl when sad and small), and making grand generalizations with nothing to support them?

  126. aislander says:

    When sozo quoted “trust not Earthly princes,” she wasn’t saying we should be governed by other than secular rule, merely that we should not put our trust in our leaders to the extent that we fail to monitor them (after all, as certain lefties seem never to tire of pointing out, we are the government, which means our leaders work for us.

    Most important, though, is the idea that we not seek salvation in basking in the glow of some leader, since saving souls is WELL above his pay grade. Leaders are human beings, with all the failings–and virtues–that condition implies…

  127. LarryFine says:

    Those styrofoam faux greek columns were quite fitting in an off handed way. I wonder if they’ll install them in the Barack Hussein Obama presidential library. (maybe they’ll unseal his college transcripts and put those in there too)

  128. xring, I was not suggesting that we replace what we have with a theocracy, no. Not at all. As aislander explained, I was speaking of the dangers of putting our hopes in human beings as opposed to God. That said, regardless of how desperately some want to remove God from the discussion regarding our moral laws, it can’t be done. He is the source of righteousness. The Ten Commandments, posted all over courthouse walls, were never a threat to democracy. It was simply understood (logic demands it!) that our laws have their foundation in the laws of God.

  129. Now we have the “Obama is the antichrist” meme….”the messianic fervoor around Obama”

    Your circular “logic” circle is really good at stroking each other’s delusions……your conspiracy theories are really fascinating.

  130. Relax, bBoy. No one’s talking anti-Christ. Just pointing out the dangers of placing our hopes in a charismatic figure who, as it turns out, had no experience and has little talent for actually governing. When the speeches are over, he’s as ordinary as garden dirt though probably less productive.

    I’m curious. Your over-use of the word meme?

  131. Interesting to see Sorel’s evolution from Marxist to fascist. BTW, aislander, I’ve been quite interested to see how few people are able to see the obvious connection here. So, “the strike” or, just for kicks, an “occupation” is simply a means to an end, and NOT and end that the occupiers think. Godwin nothwithstanding, sort of evokes some newsreel images of another messianic politician, no?

  132. aislander says:

    Combine Sorel’s mythology with James’s will to believe, Nietzsche’s will to power, and the philosophy of pragmatism (if an idea works, that makes it “true”), and you have a totalitarian witch’s brew. On a completely unrelated topic, those same philosophers were much admired by progressives in THIS country.

    Kooky, as the philosopher LarryFine might be moved to observe…

    Mussolini invented the word “totalitarian,” by the way to describe a beneficent government that provided for its people from cradle to…well…grave. All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

  133. LarryFine says:

    Indeed…

  134. aislander says:

    So…beerBoy: are you saying we SHOULD worship talented politicians with the fervor of religious congregants?

  135. AI – don’t need a séance, just need to read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the writings of the Founding Fathers.
    What they did was say PEOPLE are free to practice and promote their religions, but GOVERNMENT IS NOT.

    Name Caller, I would not be so presumptuous as to try to tell show you anything be as how I am handicapped by my self-imposed limitation to facts and reason.

    While history, science and reason are not sufficient to refute a zealously held belief, they are sufficient to call the belief into question.

    “Aislander says when sozo quoted ‘trust not Earthly princes,’ she wasn’t” – added mindreading to you resume have you?

    Sozo and AI “The Lord helps those who help themselves”.

    Are we to base our Laws only on the 10 Commandments?

    What about the 600 plus other laws found in the Old Testament.

    This Secular, Zen, Humanist prefers the 10 Precepts of Zen Living
    • Affirm life – Do not kill
    • Be giving – Do not steal
    • Honor the body – Do not misuse sexuality
    • Manifest truth – Do not lie
    • Proceed clearly – Do not cloud the mind
    • See the perfection – Do not speak of others errors and faults
    • Realize self and other as one – Do not elevate the self or blame others
    • Give generously – Do not be withholding
    • Actualize harmony – Do not be angry
    • Experience the intimacy of things – Do not defile the Three Treasures

    Larry – What columns are you referring to?

  136. aislander says:

    So…xring…are you saying that the framers of the Constitution broke their own laws almost before the ink was dry on the document? Because they most certainly did all things you say we should NEVER do–religionwise/governmentwise, that is…

  137. aislander says:

    And, xring…if sozo had any concerns about my “mind reading,” she didn’t express them–and it’s her place to do so, not yours.

    But lefties do like to butt in where they’re neither needed nor wanted, so I have to give you points for consistency…

  138. xring, not sure what you mean by “My response to removing ‘In God We Trust’ from U.S. currency is “E pluribus unum.””

    Was really hoping Murigen would come back and reply to my question of the 3 items.

    You’re the only person I can see who even came close to responding to that question.

    Guess I’ll just leave it.

  139. “Are we to base our Laws only on the 10 Commandments?”

    And, by the way, The Ten Commandments are Jewish Laws, NOT Christian Laws.

    So, some of you would have American government be a Theology Based Government like, say, Israel?

    Is that okay with everyone else?

    I guess Jewish Law id preferable to Shariah Law, even though much of the Koran and much of The Torah, and much of The Old Testament of The Bible are essentially different versions of the same books. But, none of the three of those documents are — Christian!

  140. xring, please explain your item

    Sozo and AI “The Lord helps those who help themselves”.

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at there. Thanks!

    Sozo and aislander, you can jump on that one too if you like. The more the merrier (except for LarryWhine).

  141. aislander says:

    xring: sozo wrote: “As aislander explained, I was speaking of the dangers of putting our hopes in human beings as opposed to God.”

    I apparently did a fine bit of “mind reading,” huh?

  142. Okay:

    QUESTION 1. Is it okay with everyone if we base all laws in the United States after Jewish religious laws? Yea or Nay?

    QUESTION 2. What does it mean when xring posted “Sozo and AI “The Lord helps those who help themselves”.”

    Anyone?

  143. Okay, forget those 2 questions if they are too difficult to answer.

    Just answer this one simple question if you have the courage of your convictions to do so:

    QUESTION: Do YOU believe in the saying, “God helps those who help themselves.” ?

  144. LarryFine says:

    No… the question is, should U.S. courts observe Sharia Law ? You can d.o.c. and wallpaper all day, but that IS the question.

  145. Okay, when I wrote “Anyone?” I meant anyone BUT LarryWhine.

  146. LarryFine says:

    LarryP.Hillwhine ?

  147. LarryFine, is that your real name Larry P. Hill?

    If not, who is Larry P. Hill and what’s your problem with him.

    STILL WAITING for other people here to give me their answer on the one question.

    Thanks!

  148. aislander says:

    muck writes: “QUESTION: Do YOU believe in the saying, ‘God helps those who help themselves.’ ?”

    Interesting punctuation aside, I believe in the saying as a moral to an Aesop’s fable, since action will always get more results than inaction, and, as believers, we tend to attribute those results to God, but taken as Scripture, I don’t. Because it’s not.

    I don’t believe in the saying, “All things come to he who waits,” though. Why hang around some filthy park with a bunch of chronic losers when one can go forth and make things happen?

  149. So aislander answers the question by saying, in essence, “I do, but I don’t.”

    Typical.

  150. on the 16th at 6:21 PM aislander wrote, “See, here’s the deal, RW (so you don’t look more the fool), Islam is a political religion,”

    I just saw a clip on TV of Pat Robertson (TBN) saying the exact same words. Now we know from whom aislander is being spoon fed his propaganda.

  151. LarryFine says:

    … well, Larry P. Hill is an old aquaintance. I never confirmed it, but I think he was in the wallpaper trade. SPAM is a major diet staple for him. There is anecdotal evidence he has DID… (dissociative identity disorder) which manifests itself thru the changing of monikers and the accidental 3rd person response… to himself ;)… additionally, a pattern of BTDT has developed …

  152. So, LarryWhine, you ARE saying that Larry P, Hill is YOU then.

  153. LarryFine says:

    Ok… have it your way. ;)

    … and for the record, you have me on the “TBI” list???

    .
    muckibr
    Dec. 17, 2011 at 9:11 pm
    took… When your comment(s) looks like Larry’s I ignore it(them), like I ignore his.
    .
    LMAO!!!

  154. Newt Gingrich’s concerns may soon be totally moot, as he is heading down in the PRepublican polls along with Bachmann, Perry and Cain. Seems like the Republicans are ready for a new flavor of the week.

  155. aislander says:

    Apparently YOU spend more time following Pat Robertson than I do, muck, since I am not aware of that observation on his part. MANY have made the observation, though, and I don’t claim it as originating with me.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_aspects_of_Islam

    I said I personally subscribe to that sentiment (God helps those who help themselves), but I know it is not scripture. Now I breathlessly await the mordant point you no doubt intend to make…

  156. aislander, forget the Robertson reference okay? You have a right to think what you want about Islam. It’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but I don’t believe you can prove it as fact. (If you can, then go for it!) The clip of Robertson saying that same stuff was on MSNBC, so you probably wouldn’t accept that anyway.

    Now, as regards the “God helps …” quote, here’s something I found while surfing the web. not my words, but someone who is more of an authority on the subject.

    “God helps those who help themselves.”

    This sounds like something that makes a lot of sense when you first hear it, doesn’t it? But let’s take a second and examine the origins of this extremely popular phrase.

    Origin

    The saying, “God helps those who help themselves” was first coined by Benjamin Franklin, a  Deist. In case you’re wondering, a Deist is one who believes that while a supreme being did indeed create the universe, that supreme being does not involve itself in human affairs. Therefore, miracles and special revelation (such as healing, prophecy, the virgin birth & resurrection of Jesus, and the inspiration of the Scriptures) don’t actually happen.

    At the risk of oversimplifying, according to this view, God just isn’t interested in his creations. He’s got better things to do.

    Okay, we know the origin. So, what does the Bible really say? Does God really help those who help themselves?

    What the Bible really says…

    Nowhere in Scripture will you find appropriate support for the statement “God helps those who help themselves.” Whether you’re looking at life here from 30,000 feet or from street level, you will actually find the opposite is true.

    more at…

    http://www.bloggingtheologically.com/2009/07/08/everyday-theology-god-helps-those-who-help-themselves/

  157. aislander says:

    I think action accomplishes more than inaction, and I am happy to give God credit for any blessings that accrue to me as a result of my actions, so, in that sense, I agree with the sentiment. And I already acknowledged that the saying isn’t from the Scriptures. So what?

    As for Franklin’s being a deist (and I am quite aware of the meaning of the word: condescending “lesson” not required), Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, in his book American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers and the Making of a Nation, describes Franklin’s advocating a design for the national seal:

    “Franklin wanted an image along these lines: ‘Moses standing on the shore and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his head and a Sword in His Hand. Rays from the Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity. Motto: Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.'”

    Sound like a deist?

  158. aislander says:

    Franklin also rewrote the “Book of Common Prayer.” Do you pray to a drive-by Creator?

  159. Everything from the word Origin on down (in my 4:05 PM comment) was cut and pasted from the web page linked at the bottom.

    It really doesn’t matter to me if Franklin was a Deist or not. He also wanted to make the Turkey our national bird instead of the Bald Eagle.

  160. aislander says:

    It would be unkind of me to express an opinion on whether the destination was worth the trip, so I won’t.

    I’m just grateful that it gave me a chance to use “drive-by creator” with respect to deism. I conceived the phrase some time ago and finally gave it birth…

  161. “drive by creator” doesn’t really mean anything to me. Maybe you could explain it.

  162. aislander says:

    Sure. Deists believe that everything was created by…a creator…who then trotted off to do who knows what, but he certainly had no interest in what subsequently went on with his creation. A drive-by creator.

    You know, like BAM! now there’s a universe. Hit the gas!

  163. Okay, now I get ya! And, I would say that in a religious sense, Christian that is, since Jesus ascended to Heaven, then the Diest may be correct. Since then God has been kind of hands off, and let’s see what man can do now.

    Before that, in The Old Testament, it seemed like God was stepping in a lot and changing this, that, smiting these guys, destroying those towns, flooding the world then parting the waters and so on. I think maybe God got to the point where he may have said to himself, “What the heck am I doing all this for?” Then he sent His son, who did his thing, went back home to Heaven, and God said, “Okay humans, you are on your own. Make it work.”

    I think the Diests have it right, at least after Jesus left town.

    I wonder what Newt would think of all that. No I don’t. I think he’s a Newtwit!

    (Just a joke gang. Newt’s not here so it is not a personal attack.)

  164. Ben Franklin’s idea of the National seal.

    Old Ben also had a wicked sense of humor and was not above using irony and absurdity in his responses to bad ideas.

    Ben rewrote the Book of Common Pray, and Jefferson re-wrote the New Testament.

    Deists also believed:
    God judges humans on how they lived their lives (ie treat others) and not on how the worshiped.

    God is watching like a Clockmaker watches his creations, and the world and humans do not need constant fixing and tinkering.

  165. aislander says:

    I’m sure that there has been more human misery (at least in the last hundred years or so) caused by those who sought to establish their ideas of heaven on Earth than by any other cause, whether that idea were religious or ideological or both. Read Rousseau to understand the origin of the idea of the state as object of religious devotion.

    Having said all that, there had better be a deity with an interest in human affairs because we have pretty much proved we can’t handle things ourselves, and the more we try to shape people to be perfect the worse we make it. You can’t impose fairness without also imposing unfairness. Heaven ain’t here, and it ain’t ever going to BE here.

  166. aislander says:

    I am becoming less able to string words together so it is time to say “goodnight…”

  167. I still think that Newt Gingrich is a raving lunatic if he thinks that 1.07% of the US population can impose Shariah Law on the rest of the 98.93% of us. How could that possible happen? They just don’t have the votes!

    Anyway, Newt is old news now. It’s time to see what letters are written about Ron Paul.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0