Keith Ellison, D-Minn. to swear on Koran...

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



sithsaber408
A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath.

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- "my culture trumps America's culture". What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a shit what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But America, not Mr. Ellison, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress.

Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in.

But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.

Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible.

Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, (not to mention virtually every opinion-editorial page in America) is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible.

In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.



Well.....let's let the fury begin.

What say you?

Soleran
Um America the land of Freedom?

All change isn't bad, his choosing to place is hand on the Koran might be a better example of America's fluid nature.

I mean lets face it, placing your hand on a book to take office doesn't make you a good honest person in the first place as we have seen by both parties. In my opinion placing your hand on the bible is just a ceremonial event it won't change the man behind the hand!

botankus
What's up with Minnesota? First Jesse Ventura, and now this dude? Who's next for office? Madonna?

Soleran
Originally posted by botankus
What's up with Minnesota? First Jesse Ventura, and now this dude? Who's next for office? Madonna?


You know that could prove interesting, I wonder what her campaign slogan would be, Everyone Gets Laid, vote Madonna the blessed "virgin."

lord xyz
The D Minn part made me think of "Toccato et Fugue" by Bach.

PVS
TERRS'TS!!!!!!! ALL DEM DAMN MUZLIMS!!!! DEY'R INTOL'RANT OF UTHER RELIGUNS!!! BURN'M I SAY!!!

Alfheim
Originally posted by Soleran
Um America the land of Freedom?

All change isn't bad, his choosing to place is hand on the Koran might be a better example of America's fluid nature.

I mean lets face it, placing your hand on a book to take office doesn't make you a good honest person in the first place as we have seen by both parties. In my opinion placing your hand on the bible is just a ceremonial event it won't change the man behind the hand!

I dont trust them. No doubt they will try to enforce their religon even futher instead of trying to integrate.

When some Vikings travelled to other lands they took part in their religous ceremonies without rejecting their gods.

It should'nt matter what book you use, but I dont think its going to end there.

Soleran
Originally posted by Alfheim
I dont trust them. No doubt they will try to enforce their religon even futher instead of trying to integrate.

Yeah because of course Christians in office WOULD never think of doing such a thing, yeah



Good for Vikings and Muslims are we looking to compare civilizations and standards to those times?

Religion isn't/shouldn't be dictated by "enviroment" thats a very dangerous thought in and of itself, think about it.

Should tradition(1800 life/mentality) be the main piece to building a modern civiliation? I should hope not.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Soleran
Yeah because of course Christians in office WOULD never think of doing such a thing, yeah

Well regardless of wether they are Christian or muslim until they prove to be more tolerant of others they should not be given more freedom. I was a mulsim for 6 years so I know what im talking about.


Originally posted by Soleran



Of course I know the Vikings weren't perfect. My point is people should to an extent accept the traditions of their country they are in instead of trying to change everything.

Soleran
Originally posted by Alfheim
Well regardless of wether they are Christian or muslim until they prove to be more tolerant of others they should not be given more freedom. I was a mulsim for 6 years so I know what im talking about.

I understand what you mean when you say "they" but it doesn't bode well with this discussion as it makes christians ( I am assuming here, are you christian?) seem just as intolerant as muslims are, see that?

I see christian politics all the time in the USA, plenty of hate from some of the christians but not all and some are very intolerant as well but not all.

Besides we aren't talking about all muslims or christians just one muslim and if he elected to office wouldn't people already know if he was "more tolerant?"



And to an extant he is accepting the traditions of the USA, he would be swearing into office on his religious text. Lets not make this a USA, christian puke fest about tradition and values cuz it won't hold well.

Robtard
As far as which religious book someone swears upon, who cares, one religious book is a good as the other. It would be wrong to deny him his religious freedom.

One interesting tidbit about Ellison though, he is trying to pass a law that would make it a criminal offense to profile Muslims.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Soleran
I understand what you mean when you say "they" but it doesn't bode well with this discussion as it makes christians ( I am assuming here, are you christian?) seem just as intolerant as muslims are, see that?


No im a heathen (I hate this term, I think im going to stop using it) I pray to the Norse Gods. Christians can be just as bad as muslims but in my opnion to a lesser degree.

Originally posted by Soleran

I see christian politics all the time in the USA, plenty of hate from some of the christians but not all and some are very intolerant as well but not all.

Fair enough

Originally posted by Soleran

Besides we aren't talking about all muslims or christians just one muslim and if he elected to office wouldn't people already know if he was "more tolerant?"



Well I dont think im going to elaborate here because I dont want any trouble, like I said I was a muslim for six years and I met lots of different muslims. Im not impressed in general.

Originally posted by Soleran

And to an extant he is accepting the traditions of the USA, he would be swearing into office on his religious text. Lets not make this a USA, christian puke fest about tradition and values cuz it won't hold well.

Its not. By the way there was a case in France were the French bent over backwards to facilitate muslims but they kept asking for more, this is why you have this law in France forbiding religous symbols. Some muslims messed it up for everybody.

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by sithsaber408
He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

America is the land of Religious Freedom jackass. He can take the oath on the book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster if he ****ing feels like it.

America isn't meant to be Christian, it's meant to be secular. Get that through your thick skull, please. For the love of humanity.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
America is the land of Religious Freedom jackass. He can take the oath on the book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster if he ****ing feels like it.

America isn't meant to be Christian, it's meant to be secular. Get that through your thick skull, please. For the love of humanity.

You're just naive. If Islam was a more tolerant religon then I wouldn't mind. It seems to me if you want to be accepted you need to blow up a plane.

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by Alfheim
You're just naive. If Islam was a more tolerant religon then I wouldn't mind.

Before you sling out words like 'naive', learn what they mean and how to use them.

If ISLAM was a more tolerant religion? Have you taken a look at what ANY of the religions policies are regarding other religions and people?

And I'm the one who is naive. Right.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Before you sling out words like 'naive', learn what they mean and how to use them.

If ISLAM was a more tolerant religion? Have you taken a look at what ANY of the religions policies are regarding other religions and people?

And I'm the one who is naive. Right.

Im aware that other religons are bad as well, but I would say Islam is probably the worst.

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by Alfheim
Im aware that other religons are bad as well, but I would say Islam is probably the worst.

no, it isn't. I know many Muslims and all of them are tolerant, not only of other religious people but even of my disbelief in everything religion-related.

As with every religion, it's the extremists you have to worry about.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
no, it isn't. I know many Muslims and all of them are tolerant, not only of other religious people but even of my disbelief in everything religion-related.

As with every religion, it's the extremists you have to worry about.

Yes of course not all of them are. Even if you're muslim friends tell you that Islam is a tolerant relgion they dont know what they are talking about. At the end of the day eventhough not all muslims are extremist the religon itself encourages extremism.

PVS
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
America is the land of Religious Freedom jackass. He can take the oath on the book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster if he ****ing feels like it.

America isn't meant to be Christian, it's meant to be secular. Get that through your thick skull, please. For the love of humanity. Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
America is the land of Religious Freedom jackass. He can take the oath on the book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster if he ****ing feels like it.

America isn't meant to be Christian, it's meant to be secular. Get that through your thick skull, please. For the love of humanity. Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
America is the land of Religious Freedom jackass. He can take the oath on the book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster if he ****ing feels like it.

America isn't meant to be Christian, it's meant to be secular. Get that through your thick skull, please. For the love of humanity. Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
America is the land of Religious Freedom jackass. He can take the oath on the book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster if he ****ing feels like it.

America isn't meant to be Christian, it's meant to be secular. Get that through your thick skull, please. For the love of humanity. Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
America is the land of Religious Freedom jackass. He can take the oath on the book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster if he ****ing feels like it.

America isn't meant to be Christian, it's meant to be secular. Get that through your thick skull, please. For the love of humanity.

FeceMan
Why don't we just have people swear an oath without the Bible? I mean, really, does it add anything to a person's oath? Liars, cheaters, and thieves will swear themselves blue over a Bible--I'm sure there's a pun to be made in there--and continue to lie, cheat, and steal. Honest people will swear themselves blue over a Bible and continue to be honest.

And, contrary to contemporary thought, worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a valid religious belief. (I'm sure I'll be flamed to hell and back for that one.)

Mr. Sandman
laughing

lord xyz
Originally posted by FeceMan
Why don't we just have people swear an oath without the Bible? I mean, really, does it add anything to a person's oath? Liars, cheaters, and thieves will swear themselves blue over a Bible--I'm sure there's a pun to be made in there--and continue to lie, cheat, and steal. Honest people will swear themselves blue over a Bible and continue to be honest.

And, contrary to contemporary thought, worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a valid religious belief. (I'm sure I'll be flamed to hell and back for that one.) Can't be any different than worshopping a wizard in the clouds.

PVS
Originally posted by FeceMan
Why don't we just have people swear an oath without the Bible? I mean, really, does it add anything to a person's oath? Liars, cheaters, and thieves will swear themselves blue over a Bible--I'm sure there's a pun to be made in there--and continue to lie, cheat, and steal. Honest people will swear themselves blue over a Bible and continue to be honest.

And, contrary to contemporary thought, worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a valid religious belief. (I'm sure I'll be flamed to hell and back for that one.)

any legally recognised religion is valid regardless of how ridiculous you find it.

FeceMan
Originally posted by lord xyz
Can't be any different than worshopping a wizard in the clouds.
*Yawns.*

Come up with something stronger than that.
Originally posted by PVS
any legally recognised religion is valid regardless of how ridiculous you find it.
I refuse to acknowledge that. Damn...people...****ing Cthulhu cults...

Soleran
Originally posted by FeceMan
Why don't we just have people swear an oath without the Bible? I mean, really, does it add anything to a person's oath? Liars, cheaters, and thieves will swear themselves blue over a Bible--I'm sure there's a pun to be made in there--and continue to lie, cheat, and steal. Honest people will swear themselves blue over a Bible and continue to be honest.



I agree whole heartedly here.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
America is the land of Religious Freedom jackass. He can take the oath on the book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster if he ****ing feels like it.

America isn't meant to be Christian, it's meant to be secular. Get that through your thick skull, please. For the love of humanity.

Really, so then you'd have no problem with a racist (if one was ever fairly elected by vote) taking his oath on Mien Kampf?

Or a Scientologist taking an oath on Dianetics?

Or a Mormon requesting to swear before a trial jury or into the congress on the book of Mormon?


Perhaps a secular liberal such as yourself should be allowed to swear before a judge or into our political system on some N.Y. Times editorials?


Please.

America is indeed a Christian nation bud, we were founded by Christians wishing to escape persecution from an English king.

They came here to practice their religion freely, and we have amended that over time to say that ALL people can come here to practice their relgion freely. (or lack of religion thereof)

Which is fine.

But let's get over this myth that the founding fathers weren't Christians, or at least believers in the God of Abraham of the Bible.

Washington, Lincoln, and a host of others have said as much in numerous speeches.

(I could post Washington's final speech before leaving office as president, where he says that the country needs to seek after God and the Scriptures if it is to succeed. Would you like that?)


The Constitution's original writings about Faith and Government says that congress shall make no law regarding religion, meaning:

We won't be like the old king in England and let any leaders get in the Christians way.


But somehow it's become this "Seperation of Church and State" MYTH that never even appears in the constitution.

Thats a fact. Those words aren't even in it.


But I'll tell you what is:

A system of law based on the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments.



Anyways, back on topic here.... this whole notion is stupid. Plenty of Liberal Democrats, including President Clinton, his wife the distinguished senator of NY, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and others have been sworn in on the Bible.

You know that they support freedoms of privacy, choice, and probably most other ideals that you do.

Yet they were sworn in over a Bible.

Why?

Because they know it's a tradition. They know it's representative of what this country stands for, where it's come from, and how it's been intended to be run.

They don't even have to believe in the Bible, or God, or anything, but they know that this is a Christian nation.

(You ever been to D.C.? Take a look at our national monuments, buildings, and statues. An awful lot of God on those things for a "secular" nation.)


I'm curious, what would an athiest swear over?

Nothing? Thin air?

Would kind of defeat the purpose of swearing truth on something that all people agree with as a sign of truth, morality, and honesty wouldn't it?


If that tradition is old and pointless now, then perhaps it needs to go.

But changing it all around for any individual kinda waters it down and defeats the whole purpose.

FeceMan
Shit. Now the thread just went straight to hell.

PVS
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Really, so then you'd have no problem with a racist (if one was ever fairly elected by vote) taking his oath on Mien Kampf?

Mein Kampf isnt a religious text

you fail

ill leave it to someone else to knock down the rest of your house o' cards because you bore me

Shakyamunison
Can I swear on the Lotus sutra?

Soleran
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Really, so then you'd have no problem with a racist (if one was ever fairly elected by vote) taking his oath on Mien Kampf?

Or a Scientologist taking an oath on Dianetics?

Or a Mormon requesting to swear before a trial jury or into the congress on the book of Mormon?

Perhaps a secular liberal such as yourself should be allowed to swear before a judge or into our political system on some N.Y. Times editorials?

Uh, psstt dude they are elected officials, think about the discussion your trying to make about religion and state. If they are a freakin satanic cult worshipping freak the people who voted him in would know ahead of time, huh, maybe???



Yes and over time it's fair to say changes will occur and we need to allow that to occur. Simply being christian and swearing on the bible doesn't make you a more honest nor caring soul.



So who cares if they were? We are a nation evolved from clay (actually still evolving.)



Know what else though, the founding fathers knew that the system put in place in their time wouldn't/couldn't be the same one as today so change is imminent and they knew this, which is where we are at, huh.



I agree the whole swearing in on the bible is a stupid notion and regardless of political beliefs that should be acknowledged rather then praised.



I would agree on the whole thing needs to go however if the guy can get his oath to the Koran then you should be happier knowing the man is a man of principle and unswearing faith rather like you.

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Really, so then you'd have no problem with a racist (if one was ever fairly elected by vote) taking his oath on Mien Kampf?

Wow, long ass post. Glad I'm in class not learning anything so I have time to respond.

Anycrap, racism isn't a religion and Mein Kampf isn't a religious text. This one is invalid. Next.



Nope. Although, Scientology is a bit more like a cult. Next.



Nope. Next.



I'd rather swear on a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America, personally. Since that's what I'm trying to uphold. Not religion.



If it makes you feel better, but it has no bearing on the fact that the American Government and religion was always meant to be kept separate.

The "country needs to seek God" means that it's people need a source of faith and religion, not it's government.



No, it means that congress has no say in religious matters. How you can read it any other way than literal English is beyond me.



That's true, but it was written by the same guy who wrote the Declaration and the Constitution.

There is however, this phrase: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Well, there goes your "KRISTIANITY RUELZ AWL"

He's free to swear an oath on anything he likes. It's right there in that second half of that phrase.



Aaaaand this matters because..?



Personal choice. Yea, that sounds about right.



Because the people who had the built were Christian. That doesn't make the entire nation Christian.



I already mentioned it above. The Constitution. Kind of makes more sense than any religious text anyway.



I've always seen tradition as pointless.

Why should a person be prohibited from swearing an oath on the text that means the most to them?

I'd think that a Muslim swearing an oath on a book that means jack shit to him wouldn't have a hard time breaking that meaningless oath.

Well, even Christians who've sworn on the bible have no problem breaking the oath, so I guess it doesn't even matter.

Bardock42
Originally posted by FeceMan
Why don't we just have people swear an oath without the Bible? I mean, really, does it add anything to a person's oath? Liars, cheaters, and thieves will swear themselves blue over a Bible--I'm sure there's a pun to be made in there--and continue to lie, cheat, and steal. Honest people will swear themselves blue over a Bible and continue to be honest.

And, contrary to contemporary thought, worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a valid religious belief. (I'm sure I'll be flamed to hell and back for that one.)

It is too. Stop insulting my Religious believes.


Anyways, on topic, I think the oath is what actually counts. If you want to swear it on Mein Kampf is fine with me. You just have to know that the oath is between you and the state...the bible, Koran, Chocolate Crisp Bar is just where you rest your hands while you swear.

Gregory
Having read your posts in this forum, I can see how this would be important to you, should you ever choose to run for office. I don't think they'll let you though.

Quiero Mota

Gregory
I didn't notice this bit of lunacy the first time around. A secular liberal is free to swear before a judge "under penalty of perjury," without putting his hand on any document at all.

Furthermore, atheist Culbert Olson was sworn in as governer of California without putting his hand on a Bible, something the chief justice of the California Supreme Court affirmed was acceptable.

Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

Darth Jello
This whole thing reminds me of the episode of venture brothers where Orpheus is sworn in on the Necronomicon ("careful, he's a biter"wink. this whole controversy is ridiculous, spawned by bigotted morons like Sean "friends with christian identity" Hannity and Glen ****ing Beck.

Kinneary
What is the problem with this? America doesn't have an official religion, so why should the Bible be the de facto book that everyone must swear in by? Let the man swear on any book he wants. Swearing in won't affect a man either way, but even if it were to, wouldn't it make more of an impact on him if he were to swear in on a book he believes in?

Saying "I swear by everything I don't believe in I will not take bribes" just doesn't ring well to me.

Mišt
Is it law to swear in on the Bible? Can you refuse to do it?

Kasey Chambers
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

At first, I supported what this guy wanted, but then, I thought that because the Koran is a completley different book than the Bible, Mr. Ellison should not be permitted to take his oath on it.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Although I disagree (mostly) with Mr. Ellison's asking to take an oath on the Koran, part of me can see where he is coming from. Islam is his religion. As he not a Christian, it would not make sense for him to take the oath on the Bible. The same would go for if Ellison were an Athiest. Would someone be forbidden to join Congress because they were an Athiest, and therefore could not take an oath on the Bible?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- "my culture trumps America's culture". What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

But is refusing Ellison to take an oath on the book he holds as most holy respecting his religious beliefs? As I said above, would an Athiest be accepted into Congress if they could not take an oath on the Bible?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Forgive me, but America should not give a shit what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

One statement I agree with. America shouldn't care what Ellison's favourite book is-but at the same time, he shouldn't care what Americas's favourite book is.
The last statement I disagree with it, and leads me back to my earlier statement. You say 'If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.' This is basically saying that anyone who does not believe in the Bible-anyone who is not a Christian-should not be allowed to serve in Congress.
Can I ask why not? Is it your opinion that only Christians should serve on Congress?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible.

I wasn't aware that America would do this. I have always seen the US as a very conservative country, a country that would baulk at the thought of someone making fun of a book the majority of Americans consider sacred.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by sithsaber408
What say you? Who cares?Originally posted by Robtard
As far as which religious book someone swears upon, who cares, one religious book is as pointless as the other. Fixed. If someone felt like swearing an oath on "Goodnight Moon" frankly I wouldn't give a toss if they intended to uphold the oath. In the end they're all just storybooks now aren't they.

PVS
Originally posted by Gregory
I didn't notice this bit of lunacy the first time around. A secular liberal is free to swear before a judge "under penalty of perjury," without putting his hand on any document at all.

Furthermore, atheist Culbert Olson was sworn in as governer of California without putting his hand on a Bible, something the chief justice of the California Supreme Court affirmed was acceptable.

Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

G I JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by FeceMan
Why don't we just have people swear an oath without the Bible? I mean, really, does it add anything to a person's oath? Liars, cheaters, and thieves will swear themselves blue over a Bible--I'm sure there's a pun to be made in there--and continue to lie, cheat, and steal. Honest people will swear themselves blue over a Bible and continue to be honest.

Well said. Now we need to follow that up with the logical conclusion that there need be no influence from christianity on someone's political policies.

PVS
just so everyone knows, these are not even his words. he copied and dennis pragar's bogoted rant, and the rest of his posts here are just mindlessly parroted paraphrasing of the same post. SS...have you no opinion of your own? must it be fed word for word from your masters? i pity you

anyway, its amazing how everyone goes nuts about michael richards saying fearTHE N WORDfear but this shit flies under the radar.

Gregory
Originally posted by PVS
just so everyone knows, these are not even his words.

I noticed that. Sithsaber, Deano, and JesusIsAlive ... what is it with fanatics and the copy/paste function?

Lana

sithsaber408
Originally posted by PVS
just so everyone knows, these are not even his words. he copied and dennis pragar's bogoted rant, and the rest of his posts here are just mindlessly parroted paraphrasing of the same post. SS...have you no opinion of your own? must it be fed word for word from your masters? i pity you

Originally posted by Gregory
I noticed that. Sithsaber, Deano, and JesusIsAlive ... what is it with fanatics and the copy/paste function?

So what?

I read something that seemed like a good topic for debate, and posted it.

It wasn't sent to me from my "masters", nor does it make me a "fanatic".

I happened to agree with the guys point of view, and many of you didn't.

That's what a debate is all about.

In hindsight, I guess I should have posted the link to the original article, but since it was only a simple fact (Mike Ellison, D-Minn. will swear on the Koran) followed by opinions, I just copied and pasted.

Big deal.


You PVS, must have some sort of magical gift if you recieve all your info and world news straight from your own thoughts.

You get your opinions and news from websites, T.V. shows, newspapers, etc... just like the rest of us.

So don't get all high and mighty about how I read something somewhere and posted it.



As for the topic at hand, I saw him on Paula Zahn's CNN show last night, and it was revealed that in his article he neglects to mention that the ceremony in which this would happen is a personal, private one that's more for a photo-op than anything else.


The official swearing in is with the whole congress together, and they don't even use a book.

I concede defeat.

(seems to be a running theme among conservatives this year.) stick out tongue

PVS
Originally posted by sithsaber408
You get your opinions and news from websites, T.V. shows, newspapers, etc... just like the rest of us.

no, i get information through websites, tv shows, newspapers, etc...and then formulate my own opinion. dont project your own shortcommings on "the rest of us".

also, keep in mind that "the rest of us" site our sources rather than copy and paste to give the appearence that they're our own pros. (excluding a couple of kmc's 'special' members)

xmarksthespot
Presenting other's writing as one's own without reference is generally referred to as plagiarism.

Soleran
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I concede defeat.

(seems to be a running theme among conservatives this year.) stick out tongue

Thats not altogether true though! wink

sithsaber408
Originally posted by PVS
no, i get information through websites, tv shows, newspapers, etc...and then formulate my own opinion. dont project your own shortcommings on "the rest of us".

also, keep in mind that "the rest of us" site our sources rather than copy and paste to give the appearence that they're our own pros. (excluding a couple of kmc's 'special' members)

Uh-huh, yep.

And if the opinion I formed happens to match what somebody else said, and he said it well already, then what's the harm in posting it?

(other than not linking, which I already said I should have)


I think that you and I disagree on many issues PVS, and that's normal.

But the difference is that you try to paint me out as some religious, nut-job who takes instruction from "masters" of a political movement, rather than what I am:

An intelligent thoughtful person who has heard most arguments from both sides, and picked the side which seemed right to him.


Just as you are.

(only I don't try to paint you as some retarded degenerate whose pure blind love of anything that smells like anti-religion/anti-authority "freedom" leads you to support positions which are ethically and morally despicable.)


And please don't compare me to Whob, I think I deserve a little better than that.

PVS
Originally posted by sithsaber408
And if the opinion I formed happens to match what somebody else said...

WORD. FOR. WORD.

im not going to carry this on, since like the black knight in monty python, you will not acknowledge your own wounds. please dont bite my legs off

sithsaber408
Originally posted by sithsaber408


And if the opinion I formed happens to match what somebody else said, and he said it well already, then what's the harm in posting it?

(other than not linking, which I already said I should have)

PVS
k

Emperor Ashtar
This ridiculous, Even though I'm not a christian, why should congress change a custom to accomodate to one dudes religion?

It seems that islam has become the substitute to the race card in america.

Robtard
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
This ridiculous, Even though I'm not a christian, why should congress change a custom to accomodate to one dudes religion?

It seems that islam has become the substitute to the race card in america.

Why should someone be forced to swear upon religious text that they do not believe in, especially in a country where "freedom of religion" (1st ADM) exist?

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I concede defeat.

No way. NO WAI!

Can we have this framed?

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by Robtard
Why should someone be forced to swear upon religious text that they do not believe in, especially in a country where "freedom of religion" (1st ADM) exist?

He shouldn't be forced to do anything, no one has gun to his head. Regardless of religion, it's a tradition of the country he chooses to live in, what right does he have to change it? Should this country really put it's own traditions on the side to appease to foreigners?

It's not like there asking him to become a christian.

PVS
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
He shouldn't be forced to do anything, no one has gun to his head. Regardless of religion, it's a tradition of the country he chooses to live in, what right does he have to change it? Should this country really put it's own traditions on the side to appease to foreigners?

It's not like there asking him to become a christian.

it is not law, so he can swear upon whatever he wishes. bend and twist the argument all you wish in spite of fact: it is his right to swear an oath on the koran. welcome to freedom of religion. enjoy your stay

Alfheim
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
T
It seems that islam has become the substitute to the race card in america.

Maybe.

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by PVS
it is not law, so he can swear upon whatever he wishes. bend and twist the argument all you wish in spite of fact: it is his right to swear an oath on the koran. welcome to freedom of religion. enjoy your stay
When did I say it's a law, I said it's a tradtion and it shouldn't be changed just to adhere to someone's beliefs. The book that members of the legistrative body make an oath on bearly has any bearings in there policy. It becomes a religuos issue when we start bringing other "sacred" text in. We don't live in a theocracy, so, it shouldn't matter or be a big deal the book he swears on.

Lana
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
When did I say it's a law, I said it's a tradtion and it shouldn't be changed just to adhere to someone's beliefs. The book that members of the legistrative body make an oath on bearly has any bearings in there policy. It becomes a religuos issue when we start bringing other "sacred" text in. We don't live in a theocracy, so, it shouldn't matter or be a big deal the book he swears on.

Exactly - this isn't a theocracy, so it shouldn't matter or be a big deal what book it is he swears on.

So why is it a big deal that he decided to not use the bible?

PVS
thats what i dont get. what, its shouldnt be a big deal but damn him for swearing on the book of his faith?

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by Lana

So why is it a big deal that he decided to not use the bible?

It isn't about him using the bible, my point in generally is why should american traditions in general be changed to accomodate to other cultures immigrating here. Even if it wasn't a religous text, and something else the point is traditions shouldn't be changed just to accomodate to foreigners and there beliefs.

PVS
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
foreigners and there beliefs.

he's an american. oh you mean everyone should adhere to 'white america'?

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by PVS
he's an american. oh you mean everyone should adhere to 'white america'?

I don't segregate america into groups like you or people do today. Americans, are americans. I don't care if he's an american, Whatever traditions he chooses to follow are his business and shouldn't be imposed on tradition in the united states. Just to accomodate to him.

PVS
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I don't segregate america into groups like you or people do today. Americans, are americans. I don't care if he's an american, Whatever traditions he chooses to follow are his business and shouldn't be imposed on tradition in the united states. Just to accomodate to him.

the united states is a culmination of many cultures. if you only adhere to the christian culture than im sorry to say that is indeed your stance, and you completely miss the whole point of 'land of the free'

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by PVS
the united states is a culmination of many cultures. if you only adhere to the christian culture than im sorry to say that is indeed your stance, and you completely miss the whole point of 'land of the free'

No, one's adhereing to any religion. The only reason why the bible is here is because it was a tradtion of the founding fathers who weren't even christian but, Free-Masons (The History Channel had a special on freemasonry and the founding fathers).

I missed the point of land of the free, right. Freedom is a privledge, and to be honest not something that should be takin for granted. Everyone has the right to practice whatever culture and religion they want But, why is it so taboo for a majority of americans to do the same within there own country and government they established? Again, this isn't a religous debate, He can practice whatever relgion he wants, But a tradition should not be changed for one groups beliefs?

Mr. Sandman
Traditions die out and are changed all the time. Why should this one be any different?

Freedom is the ability to do what you like within the confines of the law. He's perfectly justified in his actions.

PVS
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
No, one's adhereing to any religion. The only reason why the bible is here is because it was a tradtion of the founding fathers who weren't even christian but, Free-Masons (The History Channel had a special on freemasonry and the founding fathers).

they also traditionally owned slaves. whats your point?

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by PVS
they also traditionally owned slaves. whats your point?
What's your point, what does owning slaves have to do with this? Alot, of people owned slaves and still do.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Traditions die out and are changed all the time. Why should this one be any different?
That's my point, why american traditions die for foreign ones?


Originally posted by Mr. Sandman

Freedom is the ability to do what you like within the confines of the law. He's perfectly justified in his actions.

I never said he wasn't justified, I simply feel foreign traditions should not be forced over american ones in america.

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
What's your point, what does owning slaves have to do with this? Alot, of people owned slaves and still do.

Not in America, where the American tradition of owning slaves has changed.

You're a ****in' genius.

PVS
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
What's your point, what does owning slaves have to do with this? Alot, of people owned slaves and still do.

see my thread concerning...unorthodox...debating tactics. first post concerns that one. the point i make is that

1-tradition of the majority does not equate to the tradition of the land

and

2-tradition does not equal right, as slavery was a tradition. many other bad traditions broken in the u.s.

whatever, you're arguement is factually baseless. i dont even know why im dancing with you erm

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Not in America, where the American tradition of owning slaves has changed.

You're a ****in' genius.
And what the **** does that have to do with my point, I wasn't talking about traditions being abolished. I was talking about cultures/ traditions being forced on american culture/tradtions just to be either politiclly corrrect or please a group of people.

PVS
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I was talking about cultures/ traditions being forced on american culture/tradtions just to be either politiclly corrrect or please a group of people.

thats our exact point. only difference is you cant see it through your blinders.

he should be forced to swear on the text of another religion because you believe in a different invisible man? who the **** are you?

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by PVS
see my thread concerning...unorthodox...debating tactics. first post concerns that one. the point i make is that

1-tradition of the majority does not equate to the tradition of the land

But,it does equate to the people who esatablished the government, and nation.


Originally posted by PVS

2-tradition does not equal right, as slavery was a tradition. many other bad traditions broken in the u.s.



Did I see it equals a right?

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
And what the **** does that have to do with my point, I wasn't talking about traditions being abolished. I was talking about cultures/ traditions being forced on american culture/tradtions just to be either politiclly corrrect or please a group of people.

First of all, no other culture is forcing anything onto American traditions, he's still taking the oath, just on a book he considers more meaningful than the Bible.

Second:
Originally posted by PVS
1-tradition of the majority does not equate to the tradition of the land

and

2-tradition does not equal right, as slavery was a tradition. many other bad traditions broken in the u.s.

PVS
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
But,it does equate to the people who esatablished the government, and nation.

no it doesnt. read the ****ing constitution. first ammendment.




Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Did I it equals a right?

i meant "right" as in good, pious, just, fitting, etc.

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by PVS
thats our exact point. only difference is you cant see it through your blinders.

he should be forced to swear on the text of another religion because you believe in a different invisible man? who the **** are you?

That's not what I'm talking about, I don't give a rats ass who he believe's in. I'm saying a tradition should not be changed because the guy wants to pious and people want to be politically correct. You on the other hand keep talking about land of the free, religion, and slavery now. I dunnoo where your head is, Try to to hold it steady for one second.

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by PVS
no it doesnt. read the ****ing constitution. first ammendment.


Do you know what seperation of church and state is and that I'm not talking about the mans ****ing religous beliefs.

PVS
omg, can someone second that my words are too complex and confusing?

please, i swear (on the american bible) that i will take it back if thats the case.

PVS
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That's not what I'm talking about, I don't give a rats ass who he believe's in. I'm saying a tradition should not be changed because the guy wants to pious and people want to be politically correct. You on the other hand keep talking about land of the free, religion, and slavery now. I dunnoo where your head is, Try to to hold it steady for one second.

if you want to debate with me, learn to read and process those words. then when you are able to actually grasp a simple point in its context you may rebutt that point if you disagree. rightnow you're just being a toolbox

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That's not what I'm talking about, I don't give a rats ass who he believe's in. I'm saying a tradition should not be changed because the guy wants to pious and people want to be politically correct. You on the other hand keep talking about land of the free, religion, and slavery now. I dunnoo where your head is, Try to to hold it steady for one second.

It's not about being politically correct, he's swearing an oath on his religion, and he is free to do so.

The tradition started because the first ones being sworn into office were Christians, they chose their most meaningful book. That's the same thing this guy is doing.

You're acting as if it's the end of American culture.

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
First of all, no other culture is forcing anything onto American traditions,

Bullshit



Originally posted by Mr. Sandman

he's still taking the oath, just on a book he considers more meaningful than the Bible.


I don't care what he considers more meaningful than the bible or about the bible in general. He should swear in like any other congressmen.

PVS
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Bullshit

wow, what a well thought retort





Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I don't care what he considers more meaningful than the bible or about the bible in general. He should swear in like any other congressmen.

says who? YOU? not the law, not the constitution, just bigot knee-jerker crybaby xenophobes, who btw are a minority. so by your logic/code on majority-rules you should now stfu

Lana
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That's not what I'm talking about, I don't give a rats ass who he believe's in. I'm saying a tradition should not be changed because the guy wants to pious and people want to be politically correct. You on the other hand keep talking about land of the free, religion, and slavery now. I dunnoo where your head is, Try to to hold it steady for one second.

You're acting like this is the first time in the history of the world that someone's taken an oath on something other than the bible.

Why shouldn't traditions change? Simply because they're tradition?

It's already been stated in this thread that him taking the oath on the koran is going to be a private ceremony for him and the actual swearing in will occur with all of Congress.

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar Bullshit

Prove it or shut the **** up.






Not every Congressman has been sworn in through the Bible. Get your head out of your ass. Some have been sworn in through a judge.

Going to argue that weddings not done in a church with a priest are bullshit too?

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
It's not about being politically correct, he's swearing an oath on his religion, and he is free to do so.

The tradition started because the first ones being sworn into office were Christians, they chose their most meaningful book. That's the same thing this guy is doing.

You're acting as if it's the end of American culture.

I know how the tradition started, that isn't my point. My point is not a religuos one like your making it to be. Again, He should swear in like any congress man should. Swearing on the bible is simple an ornamental ritual, like I said the bible has no bearing in the agendas of the legislative body. It's only when you start substituting it for other religous text it becomes one.

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Prove it or shut the **** up.


I'm not talking this off topic, to prove to some ignoramus something that's freakin obvious.




Originally posted by Mr. Sandman

Not every Congressman has been sworn in through the Bible. Get your head out of your ass. Some have been sworn in through a judge.

Going to argue that weddings not done in a church with a priest are bullshit too?
Ugh, you obviously lack the mental capcity to get my point. It's not about the book, it only becomes an issue when you change the book and that's the problem. Swearing on the bible doesn't have any religous significance. It's only when you change the book for another religous book for the sake of being pious it becomes a religous matter.

EDIT:Weddings have nothing to with government, genius.

PVS
stop flapping your lips for 15 seconds and read this because it is FACT, and the FACT is that you are 100% WRONG and should SHUT UP

Originally posted by Lana
It's already been stated in this thread that him taking the oath on the koran is going to be a private ceremony for him and the actual swearing in will occur with all of Congress.

here, it seems the psychology behind learning for some is repetition/parroting, so allow me to endulge you:

Originally posted by Lana
It's already been stated in this thread that him taking the oath on the koran is going to be a private ceremony for him and the actual swearing in will occur with all of Congress. Originally posted by Lana
It's already been stated in this thread that him taking the oath on the koran is going to be a private ceremony for him and the actual swearing in will occur with all of Congress. Originally posted by Lana
It's already been stated in this thread that him taking the oath on the koran is going to be a private ceremony for him and the actual swearing in will occur with all of Congress. Originally posted by Lana
It's already been stated in this thread that him taking the oath on the koran is going to be a private ceremony for him and the actual swearing in will occur with all of Congress. Originally posted by Lana
It's already been stated in this thread that him taking the oath on the koran is going to be a private ceremony for him and the actual swearing in will occur with all of Congress. Originally posted by Lana
It's already been stated in this thread that him taking the oath on the koran is going to be a private ceremony for him and the actual swearing in will occur with all of Congress.

OMFG IN HEAVEN!!!!!!!!! messed

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by PVS
stop flapping your lips for 15 seconds and read this because it is FACT, and the FACT is that you are 100% WRONG and should SHUT UP



here, it seems the psychology behind learning for some is repetition/parroting, so allow me to endulge you:



OMFG IN HEAVEN!!!!!!!!! messed

PVS, I'm not flapoping my lips, maybe your yelling at the comp I could careless. I just read lana's post before, I didn't know that it was his own Private Ceremony. If it's private no biggie. . .

PVS
thank god wacko

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I'm not talking this off topic, to prove to some ignoramus something that's freakin obvious.





Ugh, you obviously lack the mental capcity to get my point. It's not about the book, it only becomes an issue when you change the book and that's the problem. Swearing on the bible doesn't have any religous significance. It's only when you change the book for another religous book for the sake of being pious it becomes a religous matter.

EDIT:Weddings have nothing to with government, genius.

No, you're not going to prove it because you can't. Don't try to lie to me.

He's not doing for the sake of being pious, he's swearing on something that means something to him, which is why the Bible was used in the first place.

Yea, they do. Tax exemptions and legal status, etc etc. That's why alot of them are done with judges, and have paperwork.

And to add to PVS' meltdown, read this:

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by PVS
thank god faint

LOL, you took it too seriously...usaflag

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
No, you're not going to prove it because you can't. Don't try to lie to me.


I can't, this is the ****ing internet I can find so many articles proving it, stfu.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman

He's not doing for the sake of being pious, he's swearing on something that means something to him, which is why the Bible was used in the first place.

So, the bible has to mean something to you to swear on it...okay...Anyway, like I said the book should not change for another religous book unless like lana said it's a private ceromony.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman

Yea, they do. Tax exemptions and legal status, etc etc. That's why alot of them are done with judges, and have paperwork.



Tax exemptions have what to do with a ruling body of government, stop taking out of this context. Infact stop quoting me this shit is over already,lol.

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Infact stop quoting me this shit is over already,lol.

Robtard
He's right guys... Laws and Rights have bo business getting in the way of "traditions", even Tevye says we must stick to traditons!

http://www.nextbook.org/images/feature_fiddler.jpg
"If I were a rich man, yadda-yadda-yad-da..."

Green Arrow
I say go for it, unlike Christians, Muslims will find him and cutoff his head if they findout he lied under oath sense he mocked The Koran.

The only reason liberals like Muslims is because of the large quantity of terrorists, and like them, terrorists hate America. If it weren't for terrorism, liberals would see Islam as just another religion of anti-choice schmucks that needed to be crushed by secular progressive laws.

PVS
what a silly troll you are whob.

got aids?

Robtard
Originally posted by Green Arrow
I say go for it, unlike Christians, Muslims will find him and cutoff his head if they findout he lied under oath sense he mocked The Koran.

The only reason liberals like Muslims is because of the large quantity of terrorists, and like them, terrorists hate America. If it weren't for terrorism, liberals would see Islam as just another religion of anti-choice schmucks that needed to be crushed by secular progressive laws.

Please indulge me with your insight... Why would liberals want to destroy America considering America is were they live, make their money and keep their possessions? Sounds suicidal.

PVS
why did you ask him that?

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Robtard
Please indulge me with your insight... Why would liberals want to destroy America considering America is were they live, make their money and keep their possessions? Sounds suicidal.

Just read PVS' post above yours...pretty much sums it up.

Robtard
Originally posted by PVS
why did you ask him that?

To prove him the fool.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Just read PVS' post above yours...pretty much sums it up.

Yea, I see your point...

Green Arrow
Originally posted by Robtard
Please indulge me with your insight... Why would liberals want to destroy America considering America is were they live, make their money and keep their possessions? Sounds suicidal.
You're taking what I say too litteraly, I should've expected as such, liberals think in absolutes..

They want to destroy the American way of life. Turn it into A Brave New World. Have you read that book?

It's not physichaly possible to destroy America, but they can destroy what America is.

PVS
Originally posted by Green Arrow
liberals think in absolutes..

laughing out loud idiotic and hypocritical statement of the year





















*whispers to whob so he'll understand*
thats because you made an absolute statement

Robtard
Originally posted by Green Arrow
You're taking what I say too litteraly, I should've expected as such, liberals think in absolutes..

They want to destroy the American way of life. Turn it into A Brave New World. Have you read that book?

It's not physichaly possible to destroy America, but they can destroy what America is.

Yea, because I meant "literally destroy America as in the soil"... I should have expected as much, conservatives tend to dance and dance.

And that is my point, destroying "the American way of life" would be destroying themselves. Yes, I've read the book and if anyone wants to divide America into "Haves" and "Have nots" it is the conservatives.

Wrong... Great civilizations have fallen many times throughout history and gone the way of the Dodo, that or enough nuclear ordinance and any country can be obliterated.

Gregory
In most ways, Green Arrow is just a stupid troll, no different from the thousands of other trolls thhat inhabit the internet. He's incapable of saying anything interesting, but there is one thing I'm desperately curious about.

Why would a fascist right-wing lunatic name himself after an anarchist-Communist-ultra-liberal comic book character? Are you trying to be ironic? Is it a confession that you don't really believe any of the things you're saying?

The public wants to know.

PVS
Originally posted by Gregory
The public wants to know.

well...not really....in fact i think you're the only one who wants to know.

as for me the only information i want to hear from whob is "i'm terminally ill"

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Green Arrow
I say go for it, unlike Christians, Muslims will find him and cutoff his head if they findout he lied under oath sense he mocked The Koran.

The only reason liberals like Muslims is because of the large quantity of terrorists, and like them, terrorists hate America. If it weren't for terrorism, liberals would see Islam as just another religion of anti-choice schmucks that needed to be crushed by secular progressive laws.

L laughing out loud L!


Dammit whob, I was drinking a coke when I read that.


You owe me for a new keyboard.

(perhaps I can file a claim with the goverment to have some of my tax dollars go to my office equipment, rather than for abortions.) stick out tongue

Gregory
Originally posted by sithsaber408
(perhaps I can file a claim with the goverment to have some of my tax dollars go to my office equipment, rather than for abortions.) stick out tongue

Nobody likes a troll, sithy.

(Well, you seem to like Green Arrow, so I suppose one person likes a troll. But the rest of us don't.)

Robtard
Originally posted by Gregory
Nobody likes a troll, sithy.

(Well, you seem to like Green Arrow, so I suppose one person likes a troll. But the rest of us don't.)

Whoa, lets not get out of hand here... I know tempers flare and all, but my "WOW" character took offense too that, he does 127 dps, so watch it.

http://www.blizzard.com/wow/images/trolls/troll-female.gif

Gregory
Now let's just keep it easy, here ... no need for violence.

Green Arrow
Originally posted by Robtard
Wrong... Great civilizations have fallen many times throughout history and gone the way of the Dodo, that or enough nuclear ordinance and any country can be obliterated.
And how do you think they fell?

Cause even back then there was dumbass liberals who wanted it all but never wanted to contribute to society. Rome was built on depravity and overindulgence. Liberals want a new Rome.

Green Arrow
Originally posted by Gregory
Why would a fascist right-wing lunatic name himself after an anarchist-Communist-ultra-liberal comic book character? Are you trying to be ironic? Is it a confession that you don't really believe any of the things you're saying?

The public wants to know.
Neither, before Kevin Smith raped the character... Green Arrow was like Batman with a more outlandish gimmick. I'm bringing Green Arrow back to his roots, a street level hero who is hard on crime.

Gregory
Green Arrow was a fanatical liberal long before Kevin Smith ever touched it. You really do fail at everything, don't you?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Green Arrow
Neither, before Kevin Smith raped the character... Green Arrow was like Batman with a more outlandish gimmick. I'm bringing Green Arrow back to his roots, a street level hero who is hard on crime.

Ha. Haha.

Kevin Smith.

Haha

You are hilarious.

Haha

I hate you. Read Hard Travelling Heroes.

Robtard
Originally posted by Green Arrow
And how do you think they fell?

Cause even back then there was dumbass liberals who wanted it all but never wanted to contribute to society. Rome was built on depravity and overindulgence. Liberals want a new Rome.

Each for individual differences.

Actually it wasn't just that, if that is all Rome was, it would have never lasted the 800+ years it did nor could it have controlled most of the known world. The Roman empire also expanded on the Athenian concept of Democracy and in a way gave us what we have now. You're just one tired cliche after the other... "Rome", "Brave New World", what's next, you'll throw some George Orwell my way?

Green Arrow
Originally posted by Robtard
"Rome", "Brave New World", what's next, you'll throw some George Orwell my way?
I was thinking more Logan's Run, but that works too.. smile

Gregory
Originally posted by Bardock42
Ha. Haha.

Kevin Smith.

Haha

You are hilarious.

Haha

I hate you. Read Hard Travelling Heroes.

See, PVS? People do care!

xmarksthespot
I see from the last few pages xenophobic idiocy is alive and well.

Gotta stop them foreigners from changing the ways of the real Americans.

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Gotta stop them foreigners from changing the ways of the real Americans.

Don't you just love the blatant irony of this?

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Gregory
Nobody likes a troll, sithy.

(Well, you seem to like Green Arrow, so I suppose one person likes a troll. But the rest of us don't.)

Awww... 'twas all in jest.

Just a bit of Christmas cheer.

You know, a few abortions, a gay marriage or two, and a Koran swearing congressman and we'd have a whole new type of nativity scene. stick out tongue

It'd be perfect for the "holiday" season.

Happy Festivus! eek!

Bardock42
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Awww... 'twas all in jest.

Just a bit of Christmas cheer.

You know, a few abortions, a gay marriage or two, and a Koran swearing congressman and we'd have a whole new type of nativity scene. stick out tongue

It'd be perfect for the "holiday" season.

Happy Festivus! eek!

Abortions are a necessity to me. Nothing I love, but a right everyone that has a parasite in their body should have.

Gay Marriages are so totally not wrong that I couldn't think of anything more loving and peaceful and Christian than to accept it. On Christmas at least.

Swearing in on the Koran. Love thy neighbour like thyself. Yeah. sounds awesome. We could all be happy. You are suddenly getting the Christmas Spirit. I like it sithy. You find your true loving, Christian (liberal) soul. Work on it and you will be an acceptable human being soon.

Soleran
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Happy Festivus! eek!

The holiday for the rest of us, someone get out the metal pole!

It's time for feats of strength next is how you all dissappointed me throughout the last year.

I love Festivus!

xmarksthespot
I think this year I'm going to join the war on Christmas. See how many carollers I can take out before heading off to Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium.

PVS
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I think this year I'm going to join the war on Christmas. See how many carollers I can take out before heading off to Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium.

holy shit, i am so registering that domain name

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I think this year I'm going to join the war on Christmas. See how many carollers I can take out before heading off to Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium.

HAH! You remember that episode of the Daily Show too!?

I loved it.

Oncewhite
OK YOU LIBERALS, TRY TO GET A MUSLIM TO BACK

GAY
MARRIAGE


gay marriage and Muslim country

can't get those two phrases in the same sentences...

anyway, maybe lady liberty was actually carrying the Koran?

the Muslims are silent now, but what until they start gaining a lot of power, the same "liberal" stuff they benefit from now, maybe the same stuff that'll go out the window once they get into power.


the Europeans wanted them out for a reason, my dear hearts. recall the Holy War, in which the Jews and Christians fought together to drive the Muslims out of Europe...it wasn't that the Christians and Jews actually like each other, but at least they knew the deal with bait and switch.

xmarksthespot
Ellison is entitled to hold his own views on issues, xenophobe. Gay marriage and Christianity don't often sit well together either. I don't know of a single U.S. politician who didn't thank their fictional god on the night they proclaimed victory or conceded defeat.

One Muslim congressman. Oh noes! Head for the hills and bunker down.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
HAH! You remember that episode of the Daily Show too!?

I loved it. Expect sithsaber to say something along the lines of "stupid kids, jon stewart's gay, you're retarded, god hates ****" but not as eloquently, then head off back to watching the O'RLY factor.

Oncewhite
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Ellison is entitled to hold his own views on issues, xenophobe. Gay marriage and Christianity don't often sit well together either. I don't know of a single U.S. politician who didn't thank their fictional god on the night they proclaimed victory or conceded defeat.

One Muslim congressman. Oh noes! Head for the hills and bunker down.




even in an afrocentric book, it talked about being weary of the muslims. here's the story, but mind you, i am on NyQuil, so correct me if i am wrong...

Ethiopia was a strong empire, and they were a Christian country (Coptic christians under Eastern Orthodoxy???)...the Muslims fought with them, but at this time, the Ethiopians were strong fighters, they defeated their enemies. The Muslims came back and asked them if they can migrate into their country and worship their god there. The Ethiopian king or queen agreed. I think 70 years later, after inter-marriages and living side by side with the Ethiopians, the Muslims waged a war against the Ethiopians, the Ethiopians LOST, as they were also fighting their own kin, by this time, the children of the inter-marriages fought with the Muslims. That's how Ethiopia became a Muslim country.

Bait and switch, women, get ready to be covered from head to toe!!! And if you think the Muslims love sodomites, be aware, that stuff is only ok when you are conquering Spain.

and you can say "oh please" all you want, you were warned. they aren't liberal, their religion doesn't lend itself to it.

Oncewhite
Moral of the story, for those who may not get it (maybe they are on cough medicine too)...

Muslims fight from within when they can't win an external war, it's in the history books.

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Expect sithsaber to say something along the lines of "stupid kids, jon stewart's gay, you're retarded, god hates ****" but not as eloquently, then head off back to watching the O'RLY factor.

laughing

Gregory
Originally posted by Oncewhite
even in an afrocentric book, it talked about being weary of the muslims. here's the story, but mind you, i am on NyQuil, so correct me if i am wrong...

Ethiopia was a strong empire, and they were a Christian country (Coptic christians under Eastern Orthodoxy???)...the Muslims fought with them, but at this time, the Ethiopians were strong fighters, they defeated their enemies. The Muslims came back and asked them if they can migrate into their country and worship their god there. The Ethiopian king or queen agreed. I think 70 years later, after inter-marriages and living side by side with the Ethiopians, the Muslims waged a war against the Ethiopians, the Ethiopians LOST, as they were also fighting their own kin, by this time, the children of the inter-marriages fought with the Muslims. That's how Ethiopia became a Muslim country.

Bait and switch, women, get ready to be covered from head to toe!!! And if you think the Muslims love sodomites, be aware, that stuff is only ok when you are conquering Spain.

and you can say "oh please" all you want, you were warned. they aren't liberal, their religion doesn't lend itself to it.

Ethiopia is not a "Muslim nation," you stupid bigot. You're not even allowed to form political parties based on Islam (or Christianity, for that matter); it's forbidden by law.

And the revolution that put Mengistu Haile Mariam into power (he was the one who disestablished the church) wasn't even religiously motivated; people were pissed because they didn't have anything to eat.

No amount of NyQuil makes this sort of nonsense acceptable.

Green Arrow
Originally posted by Gregory
Ethiopia is not a "Muslim nation," you stupid bigot. You're not even allowed to form political parties based on Islam (or Christianity, for that matter); it's forbidden by law.
He's the stupid bigot whilest a county doesn't permit two major religions?

Move to Ethiopia, you'd fit right in.

Gregory
I see reading comprehension is not among your skills. Somehow, I'm not surprised. Let's try this again; I'll use bold text this time.

"You're not even allowed to form political parties based on Islam (or Christianity, for that matter)." There is no "Muslim" or "Christian" party in Ethiopia. There are no shortage of Muslims and Christians. The government assures them both religious freedom in their Consitution. The government recognizes both Christian and Islamic hollidays. All the government says is that you can't form a political part around the idea that, "Hey, let's turn Ethiopia into a theocracy."

And since nobody in Ethiopia has ever tried to do that, it's more symbolic then anything else.

crazy
Originally posted by sithsaber408
A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath.

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- "my culture trumps America's culture". What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a shit what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But America, not Mr. Ellison, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress.

Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in.

But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.

Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible.

Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, (not to mention virtually every opinion-editorial page in America) is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible.

In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.



Well.....let's let the fury begin.

What say you?

Wow that post just upset me, your take on it of course not the actual issue.

Oncewhite
Originally posted by Gregory
I see reading comprehension is not among your skills. Somehow, I'm not surprised. Let's try this again; I'll use bold text this time.

"You're not even allowed to form political parties based on Islam (or Christianity, for that matter)." There is no "Muslim" or "Christian" party in Ethiopia. There are no shortage of Muslims and Christians. The government assures them both religious freedom in their Constitution. The government recognizes both Christian and Islamic holidays. All the government says is that you can't form a political part around the idea that, "Hey, let's turn Ethiopia into a theocracy."

And since nobody in Ethiopia has ever tried to do that, it's more symbolic then anything else.

I read what their consitution stated, however, the Islamic Political Party still includes Ethiopia as a country to influence in regards to their democratic system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_party


"Ethiopia looks and feels like a Christian country, at least if you travel in Addis Ababa and through the highlands. But at least 25% of the population is Muslim and some say more then 50%. Islam and Ethiopia dates back to the year 615 when the first Moslims, among them Mohammed's wife, came to Axum as refugees and settled in Negash.

Because of this Mohammed warned his followers never to harm Ethiopians. Nevertheless around 1528 a Muslim leader Ahmed Grang (Ahmed the left-handed) invaded Ethiopia. See Ethiopian History. To visit a Coptic church or Monastry anywhere is easy, they charge you an entrance fee and are very willing to show you around. How different it is with Mosks. I have been talking to the Supreme Counsel for Islamic Affairs in Addis Ababa. They are thinking about making the special places of the Islamic religion open for tourism. "


Putting people down doesn't make you sound more intelligent.



http://home.wanadoo.nl/spaansen/islam.htm

Gregory
Of course Estonia is "influenced" by Muslims. It's got a large Muslim population. That doesn't make it a "Muslim country." It doesn't even come close.

Putting people down doesn't make you look intelligent. Knowing the facts before you start babbling about how a country with religious freedom, no sort of state religion, and a Christian majority in the population is a "Muslim country" does help make you look intelligent, for those of us who can manage it.

Besides which, insulting you wasn't meant to "make me look intelligent." It was intended as a genuine, outraged reaction to an unpleasant, poorly informed bigot. And at that, it served its purpose.

Oncewhite
Originally posted by Gregory
Of course Estonia is "influenced" by Muslims. It's got a large Muslim population. That doesn't make it a "Muslim country." It doesn't even come close.

Putting people down doesn't make you look intelligent. Knowing the facts before you start babbling about how a country with religious freedom, no sort of state religion, and a Christian majority in the population is a "Muslim country" does help make you look intelligent, for those of us who can manage it.

Besides which, insulting you wasn't meant to "make me look intelligent." It was intended as a genuine, outraged reaction to an unpleasant, poorly informed bigot. And at that, it served its purpose.

Bigot? So, what is it to you?
I am far from stupid, my dear. I may not be correct all the time, as I come on these boards to relax and exchange ideas. If ideas cause you to call someone a bigot or stupid, then go ahead, I just felt it was a game on your part, but you say you are genuine, so if that's what you think, ok!

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by sithsaber408
A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath.

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- "my culture trumps America's culture". What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a shit what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But America, not Mr. Ellison, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress.

Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in.

But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.

Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible.

Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, (not to mention virtually every opinion-editorial page in America) is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible.

In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.



Well.....let's let the fury begin.

What say you?


I say you dumbass



He's Muslim. The Bible means nothing to him. For him to swear on the Bible is a false testimony, because the Bible holds no validity for him. You want a SHAM of a pledge?

Him swearing by the Quran shows sincerity in his promise, since he beleives the Quran as the basis of truth.


He is not Christian. He shouldn't be forced to swear on the Bible. In fact, due to the INCREASING number of people becoming Atheist, most courts don't require someone to swear by the Bible anymore.


WAKE UP SITH....catch up with the REST of us who live TODAY in an EVER CHANGING society....

Those who hold on to Tradition too strongly do not live in the present, and usually never catch up to the future.

Gregory
Originally posted by Oncewhite
Bigot? So, what is it to you?
I am far from stupid, my dear. I may not be correct all the time, as I come on these boards to relax and exchange ideas. If ideas cause you to call someone a bigot or stupid, then go ahead, I just felt it was a game on your part, but you say you are genuine, so if that's what you think, ok!

What do you think makes somone a bigot if not their ideas, bigot? Of course, it's not enough for you to be a purly intellectual bigot; you have to go and actively try to stir up hatered. Pathetic little hate-monger, that's all you are, and most likely all you'll ever be. It's cute that you're trying to take the moral high-ground here; I'm glad you're okay with what I think. I'm not okay with what you think--it's stupid, hateful, poorly thought-out, and, well, bigoted.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Expect sithsaber to say something along the lines of "stupid kids, jon stewart's gay, you're retarded, god hates ****" but not as eloquently, then head off back to watching the O'RLY factor.


Actually, God loves gays, just as much as anybody else, a group of people which Jon Stewart isn't one of, and I'm a big fan of his show. And Steven Colbert's.

And O'Reilly's.

Have some egg nog. big grin

Bardock42
Yes, yes, anyways, swearing on whatever you want to swear on is fine.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.