This Muslim Congressman from Minnesota

[Jim Franklin]

Taking his oath with his hand on the Quran rather than the Bible. First time in US history for it not to be done on the Bible. Atheists, deists, Jews, etc. have always used the Bible for their swearing in so it may not be unexpected that he would do so but it certainly flies in the face of tradition and history. By doing so will he be jeopardizing "one nation under God" of the pledge of allegiance?" Or will the pledge have to be changed to "one nation under 'whoever'?"

[Ron Davis]

This is the first thing that comes to mind.

Matthew 5:33-37 33 "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.Looking at the records of many congressman it really doesn't seem to be having much effect to take the oath of office with their hand on a Bible. What is the expected benefit of a Muslim taking an oath of office with his hand on a Bible?

[Scott Hilton]

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" President George Washington, September 17th, 1796

[Barbara Moulton]

I would rather a politician swear on a book which has meaning to him/her then on one that doesn't.

The "oath" is their promise to the people they will serve. If they make that oath in a meaningless way it's not worth anything.

[Hans Deventer]

Taking his oath with his hand on the Quran rather than the Bible. First time in US history for it not to be done on the Bible. Atheists, deists, Jews, etc. have always used the Bible for their swearing in so it may not be unexpected that he would do so but it certainly flies in the face of tradition and history. By doing so will he be jeopardizing "one nation under God" of the pledge of allegiance?" Or will the pledge have to be changed to "one nation under 'whoever'?"

Jim, would you rather have an atheist swearing on the Bible, than a Muslim on the Quran?

And I am quite sure any American muslim can agree with the idea of "one nation under God". Now they have a different view about God, but they are certainly willing to submit to God as they view him.

Do notice, it does not say, "one nation under Jesus Christ"

[Stan Hall]

I tend to think that swearing on the Bible is the "right" way to do it. But I have to agree with Barbara. An oath is a solemn promise is must be related to something meaningful to the person taking the oath. When one swears on "his mother's grave," he is relating his promise to that which is meaningful to him, whether or not it's meaningful to those around him.
I would like the idea of swearing on a copy of the Constitution, but our politicians have trashed that document so frequently that it apparently doesn't mean much to them. For that matter it doesn't seem their oath means much to them either.

Stan

[Bob Carabbio]

The larger question is why a person of the Islamic persuasion WOULD EVEN BE thought CAPABLE of honestly swearing allegiance to, and to uphold the constitution of, a nation which is not governed by the laws of Islam. An HONEST Muslim couldn't do that.

IF he's a practicing Moslem, his oath WOULD HAVE to mean nothing to Him since he already has allegiance to a "higher" authority. And if he's not "really" a Muslim (like a lot of professing Christians aren't really "Christian" at all), then the Koran would then be unimportant. The thing smells of political manipulation and posturing.

In any case the whether the oath actually means anything to him or not is unimportant - it's a witnessed ORAL CONTRACT executed according to the rules and practices of the venue he's in. Whether or not the Bible is "meaningful" to him is totally unimportant. It's SUPPOSEDLY meaningful to US and the Nation "Under God" that we claim to be.

IF he was allowed to swear on his demonic little book of fantasy, it's more related to the gutlessness of OUR government, and our pathetic desperation to appease our sworn enemies - with whom we are at war.

It didn't work with Hitler, and it won't work with Islam.

[Hans Deventer]

IF he's a practicing Moslem, his oath WOULD HAVE to mean nothing to Him since he already has allegiance to a "higher" authority. And if he's not "really" a Muslim (like a lot of professing Christians aren't really "Christian" at all), then the Koran would then be unimportant. The thing smells of political manipulation and posturing.

Please explain why the same would not be true for a Christian as well. I too have allegiance to a higher authority. With this reasoning, only an atheist could take the oath.

[Cindi Hammons]

IF he was allowed to swear on his demonic little book of fantasy...

Wow Bob...even though I don't agree with the Koran as a holy book, I'd be a little more respectful just out of human decency. Man...

[Hans Deventer]

Wow Bob...even though I don't agree with the Koran as a holy book, I'd be a little more respectful just out of human decency. Man...

Your remark made me wonder. What if Bob's description is a fact? Let's face it, the Koran is mainly a distortion of the Bible plus some fantasy. Now who would be interested in creating such a distortion? Who could appear as an angel of light to "reveal" it?

Thanks to the Koran, almost the entire Christian church in the Middle East has been destroyed. Now who would be behind that?

So I agree on the one hand, the statement is not respectful. On the other, I fear it is truthful all the same.

Now that says very little about Muslims and their integrity. But when I believe the Bible is true (as I do), the inescapable conclusion has to be that the Koran isn't.

[Cindi Hammons]

Your remark made me wonder. What if Bob's description is a fact? Let's face it, the Koran is mainly a distortion of the Bible plus some fantasy. Now who would be interested in creating such a distortion? Who could appear as an angel of light to "reveal" it?

Thanks to the Koran, almost the entire Christian church in the Middle East has been destroyed. Now who would be behind that?

So I agree on the one hand, the statement is not respectful. On the other, I fear it is truthful all the same.

Now that says very little about Muslims and their integrity. But when I believe the Bible is true (as I do), the inescapable conclusion has to be that the Koran isn't.

I'm not arguing the validity of the Koran...just commenting on the tone of the previous post. Having read Bob's posts before, his comment was a little shocking to me as I've never discerned this tone in any of his previous postings.

An example...I believe Buddists beliefs are off kilter and wrong in comparison to the Truth that I believe, but I'd never dream of insulting their important books or religious practices. I might try to convince them of a better way (in my opinion), but to say something insulting is going to get one nowhere. Now, I understand that Bob was not witnessing to a Muslim, but we can't forget that this is an open forum where people from all religions can read whatever is written. Writing on NazNet is like standing in the town square yelling out your opinion. In the United States it is legal, but not always prudent. :) The same beliefs regarding the Koran could have been said without insulting the Muslim world....because that is how Muslims would take the comment about the Koran.

Hans, thanks for the challenge in thinking about Bob's post in another way.

[Judy McDonald]

An author who knows a lot more about Islam than I do said it was no doubt a demon who visited Muhammed when he went into a trance and came up with the Koran ... just like Joseph Smith who saw an "angel" and the tablets. I think he's just trying to see how much he can get away with...like the town in Michigan (Hamtramk...sp?) which has an imam announcing prayers on a loudspeaker, and some towns have imams referring to sharia law, unofficially, to handle problems among Muslims. Can you imagine where'd we'd be today if people/government had allowed similar things to happen unchecked during WW II? ... How long before SOMEBODY in a place of influence has the guts to say out loud, the real enemies of the world are: Satan first, this demonic Islamic religion second, its adherents third, and gutless multiculturalists fourth.

[Barbara Moulton]

How long before SOMEBODY in a place of influence has the guts to say out loud, the real enemies of the world are: Satan first, this demonic Islamic religion second, its adherents third, and gutless multiculturalists fourth.

Multiculturalism is not an enemy.

True multiculturalism recognizes the contribution all cultures can make to a society. It isn't about any one culture having more rights than another.

Here in Canada, many people were very upset when Sikhs were allowed to wear their turbans while wearing police uniforms.

I wasn't. Because I knew that as long as Sikhs could wear turbans, Christians could wear symbols of their faith :-)

[Bruce Carriker]

An author who knows a lot more about Islam than I do said it was no doubt a demon who visited Muhammed when he went into a trance and came up with the Koran ... just like Joseph Smith who saw an "angel" and the tablets. I think he's just trying to see how much he can get away with...like the town in Michigan (Hamtramk...sp?) which has an imam announcing prayers on a loudspeaker, and some towns have imams referring to sharia law, unofficially, to handle problems among Muslims. Can you imagine where'd we'd be today if people/government had allowed similar things to happen unchecked during WW II? ... How long before SOMEBODY in a place of influence has the guts to say out loud, the real enemies of the world are: Satan first, this demonic Islamic religion second, its adherents third, and gutless multiculturalists fourth.

What author would that be, Judy?

I think one of the things that a lot of us struggle with is that there is as much empirical evidence for Islam or Buddhism as there is for Christianity, which is to say...none.

We can't empirically PROVE that we're right. We believe it by faith. So do they. We believe they are wrong, but then, they believe the same thing about us.

Satan is clearly the first enemy...today and always, till Christ returns. Islamic extremists may be second. But, lumping all adherents of Islam together as #3 on your list smacks of racism. It surely indicates an extreme level of discomfort with those whom you don't understand.

[Bruce Carriker]

The larger question is why a person of the Islamic persuasion WOULD EVEN BE thought CAPABLE of honestly swearing allegiance to, and to uphold the constitution of, a nation which is not governed by the laws of Islam. An HONEST Muslim couldn't do that.

IF he's a practicing Moslem, his oath WOULD HAVE to mean nothing to Him since he already has allegiance to a "higher" authority. And if he's not "really" a Muslim (like a lot of professing Christians aren't really "Christian" at all), then the Koran would then be unimportant. The thing smells of political manipulation and posturing.

In any case the whether the oath actually means anything to him or not is unimportant - it's a witnessed ORAL CONTRACT executed according to the rules and practices of the venue he's in. Whether or not the Bible is "meaningful" to him is totally unimportant. It's SUPPOSEDLY meaningful to US and the Nation "Under God" that we claim to be.

IF he was allowed to swear on his demonic little book of fantasy, it's more related to the gutlessness of OUR government, and our pathetic desperation to appease our sworn enemies - with whom we are at war.

It didn't work with Hitler, and it won't work with Islam.


Its a sad and scary thing when Christians are capable of this kind of hatred.

The Constitution of the United States is a non-sectarian document. A Muslim swearing his oath on the Koran is every bit as valid as a Christian swearing his oath on the Bible. This is a case of making a mountain out of a molehill in an effort to stir up an emotional response.

[BobHunt]

I can not imagine a man like Thomas Jefferson, who said the words "Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart" allowing anyone to take an oath on the Koran and to be a member of the Muslim religion, and be in a high office in our land. This is not to be taken as an insult to the Muslims, I am not insulting at all. They have their own lands where their religion is the main one of the country and we have our own land where God is God, where the Bible is the Bible and held in high regard as a Holy Book which we live by.

[Cindi Hammons]

Bob,

Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the whole Bible and "made" his own version by cutting out the parts he disagreed with. His version of Christianity is not what we see as Christianity today.

You stated that "we have our own land where God is God, where the Bible is the Bible and held in high regard as a Holy Book we live by." Unfortunately, this is nowhere in our Constitution which is the law of the land. One can believe that if one wishes, but that does not make it the law. If anything, according to the Constitution, there should be no book sworn upon as the Constitution clearly states a separation between government and the church. We (the government) do not live by the Bible. Now, maybe we (as individuals) do, but it is not the government.

With your definition, there should be no people in America other than Native Americans. To use your wording style, we had our own land where our religion was the main one of the country and the Native Americans had their own land where the Great Spirit was God. Using your definition, we need to head back to Europe.

I'm not meaning this to be offensive, just to cause people to think about what we are saying.

[Bruce Carriker]

I can not imagine a man like Thomas Jefferson...

You cite the ultimate American humanist in support of Christianity and the Bible? Jefferson did, in fact, say this:

"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus. He who follows this steadily need not, I think, be uneasy, although he cannot comprehend the subtleties and mysteries erected on his doctrines by those who, calling themselves his special followers and favorites, would make him come into the world to lay snares for all understandings but theirs."


BUT, he also said the following things about religion and Christianity:


"Millions of innocent men, women,and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisioned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. If neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting 'Jesus Christ,' so that it would read, 'A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;' the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo (sic) and Infidel of every denomination."
NOTE: This comment refers to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, not the Constitution of the US. Still, it shows clearly Jefferson's feelings on the issue.

"They believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion. NOTE: The words in bold are engraved around the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial. We often assume, wrongly, that they were written about the British. They were written about the clergy.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." The "him" being refered to here is Jesus Christ.

"I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction at length of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary which you have adduced is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed." From a letter to Major John Cartwright

"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our god alone. I enquire after no man's and trouble none with mine; nor is it given to us in this life to know whether yours or mine, our friend's or our foe's, are exactly the right."



So, Bob, in response to your statement,

I can not imagine a man like Thomas Jefferson, who said the words "Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart" allowing anyone to take an oath on the Koran and to be a member of the Muslim religion, and be in a high office in our land,

I can only say: Based on the available evidence, you're probably incorrect. Jefferson would not have cared one way or the other.

[BobHunt]

Cindi, for as many people who tell me that the fathers of our country didnt believe in the Bible, or big portions of it, I have several who tell me that they did, so I am getting these statements from both directions, and obviously someone has to be wrong. I take it that you disagree for the most part with anything that Wallbuilders has to say then, because they come from an extremely different opinion than you do. Visit their site and tell me what you think. They quote from the writings and speaches of these guys. And there are people today who are changing our textbooks and in their "new age of thought" are degrading these men and in some cases making them to look like atheists. I cant go along with that, I dont see any facts to base this on, and I dont see any facts to say that they cut out pieces of the Bible. Where do you find this stuff?

[Cindi Hammons]

Bob,

I don't know who Wallbuilders are. I have seen the Jefferson Bible at Montecello.

Jefferson Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible)

"Miracles and references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus are notably absent from the Jefferson Bible."

One thing you must remember when reading stuff from groups like Wallbuilders. They have an agenda they are trying to push. All I know is that Jefferson was a Deist, he didn't believe in the deity of Jesus and I have seen his "bible." Jefferson obviously believed in a Supreme Being, often referred to as Divine Providence, and I have no doubt that he meant God as we know Him. All I'm trying to say is that Deists did not think of God in the same way that we do today. Go to a neutral site and look up Deism. But then again, if you doubt the veracity of any modern source, you'll not believe what they have to say. I'm not trying to argue. Just watch out for those who have an agenda.

[Judy McDonald]

Everybody has an agenda.

Wallbuilders' David Barton has collected a library of primary resources, which clearly illustrate our founders' overall preference for biblical Christianity. Since our history textbooks have revised most Christian references away, the majority of public school children -- and teachers, for that matter -- don't know this. Thank God for homeschool...and the ACLU ... for bringing this to the public's attention!

Regarding my earlier statement about Mohammed's being visited by a demon, the book is packed away right now, but it's a British author. It's not Huntington...but the title is something like The Clash of Civilizations....might be Bernard Lewis.

He notes, we need only inspect the results, the fruits, of Islam throughout the world, to know if that religion/philsophy is desirable. Which leads to the question of multiculturalism. A variety of colors and languages is fine, but we must pray our Western leaders recognize the growing acceptance of Islam (Muslim chaplains in the military and prison system, mosques and "educational and charity" centers which foment hatred against us "infidels") is not a good thing for the citizens of the free world. Ideas (religious, political) spawn consequences... I'd rather live under the Bible than the Koran.

[BobHunt]

I just dont understand how Cindi can say that wallbuilders is just trying to promote their own agenda, when all they do is quote from actual pages of history books, from letters of loved ones from Washington and Jefferson, the actual letters that were written explaining the devotional lives of these men. This is first hand knowledge, whereas modern history books that have been revised many times, are a supposition and they are the books that contain people's modern opinions of things they do not know well. I sure would depend on letters from a daughter or son sooner than a history book. Thats very obvious to see.

[Cindi Hammons]

I just dont understand how Cindi can say that wallbuilders is just trying to promote their own agenda, when all they do is quote from actual pages of history books, from letters of loved ones from Washington and Jefferson, the actual letters that were written explaining the devotional lives of these men. This is first hand knowledge, whereas modern history books that have been revised many times, are a supposition and they are the books that contain people's modern opinions of things they do not know well. I sure would depend on letters from a daughter or son sooner than a history book. Thats very obvious to see.

Bob,

You are misunderstanding what I wrote. I said to beware of groups that have an agenda and that I don't know anything about the group Wallbuilders. I've never heard of them before. So, please do not accuse me of things I have not said.

However, I will say that...even though you say that Walbuilders is using primary sources, other groups (that disagree with the findings of Wallbuilders) use primary sources to further their agenda as well. It is easy to provide a primary source that fits one's ideas and ignore another primary source that does not support one's ideas. Which I suspect this group you are referring to has done. It happens all the time, to both secular and religious groups. It is very easy to find primary sources that seem to contradict themselves. Maybe they were written 20 years apart, or maybe the author has changed his opinions, or...etc. Another issue is the fact that some things don't mean the exact same thing 200+ years later. Language changes and terms have different meanings. It is impossible for us on the NazNet to read Jeffersons complete works of writings and letters to draw a conclusion.

Again, I'll state the points that I have tried to make and then I quit.

1. Jefferson was a Deist.
2. Deism is not Christianity, they do no believe Jesus is divine.
3. Jefferson created his own Bible by removing parts he found objectionable.
4. I have seen the Jefferson Bible.
5. I don't know who Wallbuilders are...and after this exchange, I'm not interested.
6. Everyone has an agenda...even we do.
7. I am not blindly taking my facts from "modern history books" as you have suggested.
8. Beware of getting all your information from one source...it's dangerous and not a smart thing to do.

[Bruce Carriker]

...all they do is quote from actual pages of history books, from letters of loved ones from Washington and Jefferson, the actual letters that were written explaining the devotional lives of these men. This is first hand knowledge...

All of the quotes I listed above were from the ACTUAL WRITINGS of Thomas Jefferson. THAT is first hand knowledge.

As for quoting history books, why should we assume that "old" history books are any more valid or legitimate than "new" history books? I have problems with both.

Old - racism, sexism, apartheid are rarely mentioned as a part of our national past.

New - racism, sexism, apartheid seem to be the only thing discussed about our national past.

[BobHunt]

Cindi, not trying to argue either, I will look into more info on all of this.

[Stan Hall]

In an earlier post I said that a person's oath should be upon what he believes in. But there's a problem with our Muslim Senator from Minnesota. While the Bible is compatible with the Constitution, the Quran is not. For example, the Constitution supports freedom of religion. The Quran prohibits it. The Constitution (with Amendments) specifies equal rights for all. The Quran specifies that women are subordinate.
Any pledge to uphold the Constitution violates the laws of the Quran. Therefore taking an oath of office of the United States on the Quran is a violation of the principles upon which the oath is taken rendering the oath meaningless and worthless. Such an oath should not be accepted as valid.

[Ron Davis]

In an earlier post I said that a person's oath should be upon what he believes in. But there's a problem with our Muslim Senator from Minnesota. While the Bible is compatible with the Constitution, the Quran is not. For example, the Constitution supports freedom of religion. The Quran prohibits it. The Constitution (with Amendments) specifies equal rights for all. The Quran specifies that women are subordinate.
Any pledge to uphold the Constitution violates the laws of the Quran. Therefore taking an oath of office of the United States on the Quran is a violation of the principles upon which the oath is taken rendering the oath meaningless and worthless. Such an oath should not be accepted as valid.

I would have to disagree with your assessment. The Bible can be interpreted to place women in a subordinate role. And how does the Bible permit freedom of religion? Doesn't the Bible also have something to say about the taking of oaths? Oh yeah, I already pointed that out in this thread.

[Stan Hall]

The Bible depicts women in subordinate roles but I don't believe it requires it like the Quran does. You may be right about the taking of oaths, however.
Nowhere that I'm aware of does the Bible exhort anyone to force conversion on another. Christianity has to be a personal choice. The Quran, on the other hand, requires forced conversions and does not allow freedom of choice.

[Barbara Moulton]

I can not imagine a man like Thomas Jefferson, who said the words "Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart" allowing anyone to take an oath on the Koran and to be a member of the Muslim religion, and be in a high office in our land. This is not to be taken as an insult to the Muslims, I am not insulting at all. They have their own lands where their religion is the main one of the country and we have our own land where God is God, where the Bible is the Bible and held in high regard as a Holy Book which we live by.

Ironically, I just read today that the Koran which was used for the swearing in was one that had been owned by Thomas Jefferson.

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

Michigan has the largest Muslim community in the US - i do believe i am correct on this information -

Not one

i repeat -

not one

was in the viewing of President Ford's body.

Now, this culture is one that does pay respects and is politically involved.

Still very intrigued by many things seen and not seen

[Billy Cox]

Michigan has the largest Muslim community in the US - i do believe i am correct on this information -

Not one

i repeat -

not one

was in the viewing of President Ford's body.

Now, this culture is one that does pay respects and is politically involved.

Still very intrigued by many things seen and not seen

How do you know that not even one Muslim was at the viewing of President Ford's body? Unless I am mistaken, one does not have to dress like Osama bin Laden to be a Muslim.

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

How do you know that not even one Muslim was at the viewing of President Ford's body? Unless I am mistaken, one does not have to dress like Osama bin Laden to be a Muslim.

First of all, you caught me in using an absolute. *not one*.

The Muslims in my area all wear one particular garment or another. It is of the culture of which i am surrounded that i speak. Muslims in your area - i can't speak of.

During the time of which i was in line, it seemed that no Muslims were in line.

Yes, - i walked and looked down the rows many times throughout the evening. Potty breaks were necessary. :fav18

To be honest, i was in my own little world - enjoying friends - suddenly after two hours i saw *one* minority. i was startled. Like - woah - from that point forward - i began to look/watch - seeking to find.

[Barbara Moulton]

First of all, you caught me in using an absolute. *not one*.

The Muslims in my area all wear one particular garment or another. It is of the culture of which i am surrounded that i speak. Muslims in your area - i can't speak of.

During the time of which i was in line, it seemed that no Muslims were in line.

Yes, - i walked and looked down the rows many times throughout the evening. Potty breaks were necessary. :fav18

To be honest, i was in my own little world - enjoying friends - suddenly after two hours i saw *one* minority. i was startled. Like - woah - from that point forward - i began to look/watch - seeking to find.

I can't really speak for Muslims but I do think that if I was a Muslim who dressed in a way that could easily identify me as such, I would probably avoid activites that would put me in the middle of a large groups of patriots.

And of course, even though Michigan has a higer concentration of Muslims, they still only make up 2% of the population.

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

I can't really speak for Muslims but I wouldn't be surprised that if I was a Muslim who dressed in a way that could easily identify me as such, I would probably avoid activites that would put me in the middle of a large groups of patriots.

And of course, even though Michigan has a higer concentration of Muslims, they still only make up 2% of the population.

?????

They are very proud to dress the way they dress. They desire to be known as they as they are known.

Speaking of those from which i live and work.

*laughs* i don't care what the paper/website shows - -there are more than 2% in my area.

[William Hunter]

Interesting posts here, but if this congressman is truly obedient to the Koran, then his first loyalty is to the teaching of this book rather than the good of our nation. Yes, our nation does allow for "diversity" except for Christians in many cases. It is interesting that this man would mention that diversity and yet, in Arab counties, Christians and other "non-believers" are tortured, put in slavery or killed for not following the Koran. And the there are the Shites and the Sunnis who believe in genocide of the other because they do not argree on the Koran, and believe that the other, and anyone else who does not believe the Koran their way are infidels that should be enslaved and/or killed. What I see in our world, and as I have read the Koran, is deeply troubling that we would let someone who first loyalty, by his faith, is not the defense of this nation, have say on how our nation is governed; to say nothing of the fact that if enough Muslims were in power in this country, like other countries, no other religion but Islam would be tolerated, provided you believed the Koran in the terms of which Muslim sect was in power. I find all this troubling concerning the future of the USA. Slipery slopes seem to have a way of increasing a downward slide away from what show be in place. We do have a right to be concerned about this. How far will this go? Will our govt. fianlly be subservient to the Koran. Some here would say that would not happen, but then north Africa was one time Christian, until the 5th century when the violent religion, Islam, came on the scene.

[Barbara Moulton]

?????

They are very proud to dress the way they dress. They desire to be known as they as they are known.

Speaking of those from which i live and work.

*laughs* i don't care what the paper/website shows - -there are more than 2% in my area.

I am not saying they aren't proud of what they wear. That's not what I said at all.

But they are also the target of racial profiling and suspicion. Just ask those who travel how they are treated at the airport. So I was simply speculating that perhaps Muslims choose carefully about going to places where they will be surrounded by people who might look upon them with suspicion. I might be off base here...just trying to suggest a reason other than the one that it seems is being implied.

Blessings,
Barbara

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

But they are also the target of racial profiling and suspicion.
Blessings,
Barbara

i don't think this is true at all.

There is rarely any suspicion or racial profiling around here.

i am not selecting them from the list of other minorities for not being visual at the viewing.

Its just this thread mentioned a minority that wasn't seen. Some had originally thought i was meaning that it was a black/white issue.

No overreads, please. :)

[Hans Deventer]

. Some here would say that would not happen, but then north Africa was one time Christian, until the 5th century when the violent religion, Islam, came on the scene.

Yes. And conquered that area by force. So as soon as the islamic forces conquer the US by military power, you're in great danger. I don't expect to see that in my life time, though. They rather kill themselves nowadays.

[William Hunter]

We and they should not be at all suprised at this, and maybe it should be expected---since about 99% of the known terrorists in today's world are middle-eastern muslims. I've heard some Muslims talk about this, my urologist for one (Mohammed Tibib) who says this is not a bad thing since so many terrorists from middle-eastern countries. He says he is glad this is happening for it makes it safer for the fine man and his doctor wife to live safely here. Dr. Tibib is not Islamic, if fact he is not a follower of any religion or the Christian faith. His wife leads a Bible study for doctors at the hosp. I go to and all her "students" are praying for the conversion of her husband.





I am not saying they aren't proud of what they wear. That's not what I said at all.

But they are also the target of racial profiling and suspicion. Just ask those who travel how they are treated at the airport. So I was simply speculating that perhaps Muslims choose carefully about going to places where they will be surrounded by people who might look upon them with suspicion. I might be off base here...just trying to suggest a reason other than the one that it seems is being implied.

Blessings,
Barbara

[Andrew Henck]

I can not imagine a man like Thomas Jefferson, who said the words "Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart" allowing anyone to take an oath on the Koran and to be a member of the Muslim religion, and be in a high office in our land. This is not to be taken as an insult to the Muslims, I am not insulting at all. They have their own lands where their religion is the main one of the country and we have our own land where God is God, where the Bible is the Bible and held in high regard as a Holy Book which we live by.

This seems to fly in the face of everything our Founders stood for when our nation was formed. Religious freedom is one of the most crucial tenets of our democracy.

Is God "not God" and the Bible "not the Bible" in places where Muslims compose a high portion of the population?

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

Is God "not God" and the Bible "not the Bible" in places where Muslims compose a high portion of the population?

Forgive me, Andrew, but i am not totally understanding your question. Could you rephrase it, please. Then, i will respond with what a favorite RN told me who is a practicing Muslim.

[Andrew Henck]

The previous post said "we have our own land where God is God, where the Bible is the Bible and held in high regard as a Holy Book which we live by."

It seems to imply that God is only "God" and the Bible is only the "Bible" and held in a "high regard" only in this nation because of our Christian roots. However, it also seems to imply that this is not the case in nations where Muslims make up a larger part of their population. Religious freedom should be considered a basic, in my opinion, in this country. Just like equality should be considered a basic.

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

The previous post said "we have our own land where God is God, where the Bible is the Bible and held in high regard as a Holy Book which we live by."

It seems to imply that God is only "God" and the Bible is only the "Bible" and held in a "high regard" only in this nation because of our Christian roots. However, it also seems to imply that this is not the case in nations where Muslims make up a larger part of their population. Religious freedom should be considered a basic, in my opinion, in this country. Just like equality should be considered a basic.

Thank you, Andrew, for restating your point. There is no need to mention what my friend said - and i agree with what you have said to a point. i can't go all the way with the religious freedom thing, because it would mean that the terrorists would have freedom to do their thing. Are you saying that they should have freedoms, too?

[Andrew Henck]

i can't go all the way with the religious freedom thing, because it would mean that the terrorists would have freedom to do their thing.

What's "their thing?" If we're equating Muslims in this context to terrorists, then I guess they should have freedom to "do their thing."

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

What's "their thing?"

To research how to continue their terroristist movement.

To carry out the plans of terrorism around the world and here in the US.

To murder.

Isn't this the definition of a terrorist?

[Andrew Henck]

Religious fanatacism is different from religious freedom.

Muslims should have the right to practice their religion. Clearly, a majority of Americans have the image of Muslims being terrorists. This correlation sadly continues and is inherently wrong.

Getting back to the topic of this post, the Muslim congressman from Minnesota had the right to take his oath of office with his Koran. I realize it's different from what virtually every American leader has used in the past, however, if we're going to voice concerns and ask "why couldn't he do what has always been done and use the Bible," then the election of the first woman as Speaker of the House, regardless of her party affiliation, shouldn't have happened based on that logic.

[William Hunter]

Just as the nature of war has now changed, so has the ways to cripple an nation and bring it to its knees. We do not live in a WWII world anymore.





Yes. And conquered that area by force. So as soon as the islamic forces conquer the US by military power, you're in great danger. I don't expect to see that in my life time, though. They rather kill themselves nowadays.

[Mike Norris]

...." U S A Today " had a very fine article on the editorial page this week on the subject . I agree with the writer that the whole debate over someone not using a Bible is rather ridiculous.