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. 😛
It'd be perfect for the "holiday" season.
Happy Festivus! 😱
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. 😛
It'd be perfect for the "holiday" season.
Happy Festivus! 😱
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Move to Ethiopia, you'd fit right in.
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.
Re: Keith Ellison, D-Minn. to swear on Koran...
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.
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 [b]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. [/B]
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.
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.
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!
Re: Keith Ellison, D-Minn. to swear on Koran...
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.