Goode: Ellison’s Election Shows We Are ‘Vulnerable To Infiltration’ By Those Who Want Another 9/11
Goode: Ellison’s Election Shows We Are ‘Vulnerable To Infiltration’ By Those Who Want Another 9/11
In a letter to constituents, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) blasted Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, for using a Koran in a private, unofficial swearing in ceremony. Goode wrote, “I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America.”
Goode’s remarks have been widely criticized as bigoted. But he’s not backing down. In an op-ed in this morning’s USA Today, Goode writes that Ellison’s election is an indication that we are at risk of “infiltration” by Islamic extremists who want another 9/11. An excerpt:
My letter also stated, “If American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran.”
Let us remember that we were not attacked by a nation on 9/11; we were attacked by extremists who acted in the name of the Islamic religion. I believe that if we do not stop illegal immigration totally, reduce legal immigration and end diversity visas, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to infiltration by those who want to mold the United States into the image of their religion, rather than working within the Judeo-Christian principles that have made us a beacon for freedom-loving persons around the world.
In response to Goode’s column, the USA Today editors write, “Tolerance and religious freedom are at America’s heart. So is the nation’s embrace of people from all countries and cultures. Several million Muslims live in the USA. It is to the nation’s credit that one of them will join Congress this week.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
173 Responses to “Goode: Ellison’s Election Shows We Are ‘Vulnerable To Infiltration’ By Those Who Want Another 9/11”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Pa-thet-ic.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:30 amDid it ever enter into this mental midget's mind that the majority of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 entered legally into this country? The "Virgil Goode" position on immigration has the same ring to it as the "David Duke" position on equality.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:33 amOk, we can ban muslims from religious office as soon as we ban all other religious people.
It would be easy: just put a ban on insane people being elected to office. That would eliminate all religious people without discriminating against their religion. We would include non-religious insane people too.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:33 amGoode will be lieing when he takews his oath of office which reads:
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
The Constitution contains an amendment (#1) that states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 amEllison sez:
If that is the case, why didn't we close our borders after 9/11? Hmm?
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:42 amAmerica, land of the Free.
Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Assemble peacefully, AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION (etc.)
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:42 amWhat a complete, f*cking IDIOT.
New State Slogan:
Virginia is for
Lovers, er, Racist, p*ssy cowards.or just
Virginia is for Haters
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 amHere is your pre-view for the next election, fear the muslims, they will force you to convert, and chop off your head if you don't.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:51 amGoode doesn't seem to consider that even a LEGAL immigrant could be the insidious influence that he paints.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:57 amVirgil, you're wearing Joe McCarthy clothes.
Any Religion that trys to control American politics & policy is bad.
ANY RELIGION, Virgil.
You're guilty of what you're claiming of Mr. Ellision.
Macaca, Jr. is pissed. Good. We need to keep alert about how religion is screwing up our government. Virgil, get a life. Or a wife. Something that may help you understand how off track you are here.
God, these guys give me the creeps. It's like the lady who divorced a Republican. When asked why, she said, "For 4 years, all he did was sit on the edge of the bed & tell me how good it was going to be."
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:57 amSo then how do we know that Mr. Goode isn't one of them? You know, like Tim McVeigh or Terry Nichols or Eric Rudolph or the unibomber or some-such Christoterrorist? Someone should ask.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:59 amGo, virgil, go. Keep exposing the GOP for what it is, a rascist organization dedicated to theocratic dominion of the US.
The GOP must be wondering if Virgil is a liberal mole.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:59 amThe editors of USA Today deserve kudos for their rebuttal to Goode's paranoia and suspicion.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:02 amMy letter also stated, “If American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration...
He sounds like one of those really bad local car salesman ads shown at 2 a.m.
What a maroon!
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:02 amSadly, this backwoods bigot reflects the views of many of his southern VA constituents ...
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:03 amFear. Good. They deserve to live in fear.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:15 amLet us remember that we were not attacked by a nation in Oklahoma City, we were attacked by right-wing fanatics who resembled Virgil Goode. If you vote for any Republican, anywhere, you are handing the nation over to the terrorists and fearmongers.
Virgil Goode, a David Duke for the new decade.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:15 amIf the represenative from Virginia and his allies in congress believed in the Constitution and its provisions for separation of church and state they would not have to beat the drums in fear of their own demise.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:18 amThe constitutional system provided by a group of individuals with far more insight in moral and politics provided that protection that he is so desparate for.
Relax congressman and stop with your bigotry. And, why not apologize for your own basic flaws.
goode is just speaking to the choir on this one. his base must be as bigoted as he is, or he would not likely say it, right?
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:18 ammaybe he needs money for an upcoming investigation? he is working on his legal defense fund. what better way to get money than make every bigot in the country aware of him?
Sheesh. What a freak.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:21 amwe are leaving ourselves vulnerable to infiltration by those who want to mold the United States into the image of their religion,
That sounds like it would be YOU, honorable congressidiot.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 amVirg, Ol' Buddy -
Didn't recognize you without your hood and sheet on! Must be careful how you appear in public, otherwise we might mistake you for a real American, not a fear-mongering, bigoted Virginian.!!
And just a reminder, Virg -- Rep Ellison is a natural-BORN citizen, so do we all pose a threat to your way of life? What a f#cking moron!!!!
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 amThere's a clip on crooks&liars from late last year when Bill Clinton showed up at a Jim Webb rally... it was Slick at his very best, and it culminated with a brilliant parody of the GOP fear-and-smear tactics.
I paraphrase, but it went something like this:
"The Republicans have nothing but fear to sell. They want to scare you. They want you to believe Democrats are going to tax you all the way to the poorhouse. On the way to the poorhouse, you're gonna pass a terrorist on every corner. And you'll trip over illegal immigrants wanting to take your job, and run into gays wanting to break up your marriage... etc etc"
The video is awesome, Slick's timing is spot on, but what with freaks like Virgil Goode (R-Camp Jesus) still in office, once again the truth is apparently stranger than fiction.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:25 am"Judeo-Christian principles" did not give us freedom. Principals of the Enlightenment period, including the destruction of the notion of a divine ruler and the involvement of religion in government, made us free,
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:28 am100 years from now, when you and I are dead, and our children have also passed, the makeup of the country will look very different in terms of color and ethnicity. And this has happened in many countries in the past. It's a product of people moving into different areas of the globe and settling. Then it happens again and then again.
So you can't say, this is the way I want it. This is what I want the neighborhood to look like. Because even if you did get it that way, it would change yet again with new generations. And who knows what the new generations will want to do. And that's just the point.
Instead of focusing on people, (actually a major strategy of the religious right and neocons), we should be focusing on laws and the constitution. And this includes the bill of rights as well. When losers like Rush Limbaugh or Newt suggest that we should curtail our freedom of speech, things guaranteed in the constitution, they are destroying the very foundation of the country. Long after he's dead and gone, there will be no nation left. At least no nation you recognize.
So our job is to protect and defend the constitution. Our job is to keep religion free but a strong wall dividing church (or mosque) and state. Our job is to expand the freedoms of the constitution not curtail them. Our job as a nation is to do this. Otherwise, yes, as immigration continues and people bring their own values to the country, there will be little left of the original vision of the nation. You can't tell people, speak as I do, speak English. You can't tell people do as I do culturally. They will bring their own identity and culture. But what you can do is present the declaration of independence, the constitution including the bill of rights, and say this is the essence of our nation. This is what we shall keep.
So in light of that, I have always believed republicans have been actual enemies of this country. They are as clueless as the Alabama governor was during integration. They are willing to break laws and break the constitution in order to sustain their narrow views. And that is clearly destructive and anti-american.
This is our task, to keep america on the right road, focused on what is important. Otherwise we will lose everything.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:28 amRemember folks this man was elected. I'm not aware of a sudden rash of outrage from his constituency.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:31 amI wrote another post where I called Goode a "Nazi." That was wrong. He said himself that he's for "Judeo-Christian principles," so he is not anti-Semitic in the Nazi sense. Though he surely believes that Jews are damned.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:33 amYour spot on Samanta.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 amSo it is a war on Islam, not on terrorism. I always thought that was the boogeyman they wanted us to fight all along.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 amwhat I remember is that the US was attacked on 9/11 by people who were very conservative and regarded themselves as religious ... people who believed the rights of other people are meaningless in the face of their piety
kind of like Mr. Goode ...
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:39 amSamantha
Excellent post
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:42 amLetters to the editor at C-Ville Weekly, Issue #18.52 :: 12/26/2006 - 01/01/2007
This is the newspaper where the Goode controversy started.
http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=141404064423910&ShowArticle_ID=11042212063517948
http://tinyurl.com/y9t634
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:42 am"we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to infiltration by those who want to mold the United States into the image of their religion"
So he's mad that someone else is trying to do the same thing he is?
Idiot.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 amEllinson is Not an immigrant. What an idiot.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 amI sort of agree with him. If we can find some common links among all of the hijacker, maybe that should influence our security priorities. Well, let's see... oh, what's this, 16 of the 19 hijackers, and Osama himself, are Saudi citizens.
Hey, that was easy. How about we take a serious look at Saudi Arabia. Well, look here, it seems that the wealthy royalty have been in the news lately for funding the insurgents in Iraq who are killing US soldiers. Wow.
Thank you Mr. Goode, now it seems like we're getting somewhere. What do you have to say about the contribution of Saudi's and the continuing support by Saudi's of terrorism aimed at Americans here and abroad? And, Mr. Goode, what are you going to do about it?
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:54 amdid he really write a letter that referred to himself in third-person? wtf? hey virg, what about timothy mcveigh?
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:55 amFunny, those who seek to remove the Bible from all public forums, defend the use of the Quran in the same...
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 amWell, how odd is it that Ellison was born in the US? He didn't emmigrate here. He converted to Islam in college. So, and I'm sure it's obvious to anyone here, stamping out immigration of Muslims, which is completely unamerican btw, will not necessarily stop any increase in the number of Muslims in the country.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 pmI'm more concerned about the group that elected this guy.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 pm“Judeo-Christian principles†did not give us freedom. Principals of the Enlightenment period, including the destruction of the notion of a divine ruler and the involvement of religion in government, made us free,
Comment by Bat Guano
Where do you think those principles of the enlightenment period came from?
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 pm#37 - 20wordsorless, read Judd's post:
"In a letter to constituents, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) blasted Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, for using a Koran in a private, unofficial swearing in ceremony."
Get it? NOT PUBLIC.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 pm#11 - The unabomber wasn't a christofascist. He was a paranoid nutball, but not for Jesus.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:07 pm#40 - Uh, it wasn't the Vatican.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:12 pmSadly, Virginians placidly agree with this bigot. If George Allen had not had the national coverage of his "macaca" comment he would still be a Senator. Virginia is for haters and at some point in this century it needs to be dope slapped into tolerance. Goode should be on hate-talk-radio and not in Congress.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:17 pmSorry. Correction. Tha Vatican wasn't formed until 1929. I should have just said The Church. as in the Enlightenment did NOT come from The Church. And the Enlightenment had more of an influence on religion that vice versa.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pmFunny, those who seek to remove the Bible from all public forums, defend the use of the Quran in the same…
Comment by 20wordsorless
Funny how some people don't understand that when people are sworn in and use a holy book it's their own book and they aren't shoving anything in other people's faces. They do it for their own personal reasons. When a bible or the 10 commandments are place on public land and paid for by public money then that is a totally differnent story. Personal choice versus public imposition.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pmFunny, those who seek to remove the Bible from all public forums, defend the use of the Quran in the same…
Comment by 20wordsorless
A lie.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:19 pmThe unabomber wasn’t a christofascist. He was a paranoid nutball, but not for Jesus.
Comment by Jake
McVeigh was a homegrown terrorist, not an immigrant -- which is what Goode seems to fear above all else.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 pmWhere do you think those principles of the enlightenment period came from?
Comment by 20wordsorless
No doubt your answer to this question would be a distortion of reality.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:21 pmSamantha,
While your post seems to be quite sincere and heart-felt, it is also quite niave. Of course the ethnicity of America will change, but as long its' citizens hold to the principles and traditions this nation was founded on, it will remain the same. It's easy to point a finger at one political party or another and say they are the enemies of this country, but the reality is that the quality of our people has vastly diminished on both sides of the aisle--from the White House to main street USA. With each new generation we increasingly reject the very notion of God, and the values and principles of our founders. Is it any wonder our society is plagued with so many ills? the only real hope for America is for its' people to return to those old values.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 pmGOPers will continue to be shocked when one asks why their organization attracts most of the racist politicians
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm...When a bible or the 10 commandments are place on public land and paid for by public money then that is a totally differnent story. Personal choice versus public imposition.
Comment by dlet
You'll need to level Washington to get rid of all those impositions. You should also destroy the writings of many of our founding fathers while you're at it. I hear they'll be removing " In God We Trust from some of our currency, so you should be pretty happy about that.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:32 pm#49
I doubt you'd even recognize reality.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:34 pmthe values and principles of our founders...Comment by 20wordsorless
OK, just for fun, why don't you "enlighten" us about what those founders' values and principles were?
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:35 pmI hear they’ll be removing †In God We Trust" from some of our currency, so you should be pretty happy about that.
Comment by 20wordsorless
I'll be very happy if this happens - both as an American and as a Christian.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 pm"but as long its’ citizens hold to the principles and traditions this nation was founded on, it will remain the same."
"the only real hope for America is for its’ people to return to those old values."
Comment by 20wordsorless — January 2, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
You mean the Constitution. If so, I fully agree.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:39 pmYou should also destroy the writings of many of our founding fathers while you’re at it. I hear they’ll be removing †In God We Trust from some of our currency, so you should be pretty happy about that.
Comment by 20wordsorless
Why would I want to destroy something that someone wrote about their personal beliefs? Doesn't bother me that they choose to write about something they believe in.
Kind of funny how "In God We Trust" is placed on something that causes the most sin in this world. I guess money is god to most. While taking it off of money doesn't make me "happy", to me it makes sense.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:46 pmIt is disgusting to watch the left endorse the idea of replacing the bible with the Koran. Conservatives will highlight the new Congress' terrorist sympathizing ways in the new year.
Rep. Goode is right. Ellison is repugnant and the people that elected him should hang their head in shame. AND of course Think Progress, has nastier things to say about Christianity than Islam.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 pm#
“Judeo-Christian principles†did not give us freedom. Principals of the Enlightenment period, including the destruction of the notion of a divine ruler and the involvement of religion in government, made us free,
Comment by Bat Guano
Where do you think those principles of the enlightenment period came from?
Comment by 20wordsorless — January 2, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
#
For your education:
"The Age of Enlightenment (from the German word Aufklärung, meaning "Enlightenment") refers to either the eighteenth century in European and American philosophy, or the longer period including the seventeenth century and the Age of Reason. It can more narrowly refer to the historical intellectual movement The Enlightenment, which advocated Reason as a means to establishing an authoritative system of aesthetics, ethics, government, and logic, which would allow human beings to obtain objective truth about the universe. Emboldened by the revolution in physics commenced by Newtonian kinematics, Enlightenment thinkers argued that same kind of systematic thinking could apply to all forms of human activity. The Enlightenment is often closely linked with the Scientific Revolution, as both movements emphasized empiricism, reason, science, and rationality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
Read the whole article. Perhaps you will learn not to make the kind of comments you do when you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Thus, you might actually be able to debate in the future with some credibility.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm“In God We Trust†should be replaced by "Know Theyself".
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm#41 Zooey,
Read the actual facts and not the altered tidbits that Judd spoon-feeds you robots.
"You can't back down. You can't chicken out. You can't be afraid. You got to have faith in Allah, and you've got to stand up and be a real Muslim," Detroit native Keith Ellison said to loud applause.
"On Jan. 4, I will go swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I'll place my hand on the Quran," Ellison said while placing his hand on the lectern, to loud applause.
Public promotion of his religion, and publicly swearing in with the Quran. Get it? PUBLIC! God you're stupid!
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 pmIts a sad day when some guy who gets elected has to answer for his religion.
Keith Ellison is one of the finest elected officials in Congress right now. But rather than using the opportunity to argue policy with him, this COWARD attacks his religion and misleads people to think that he will be DEMANDING anything.
The swearing in in congress does not have any holy text. The ceremony in question is a private, after-the fact ceremony. Keith Ellison is entitled by the voters in Minneapolis to swear in privately to any damn text he wants. And some Jackass Representative from Virginia, hoping to fear his disaffected base into voting next time should keep his mouth shut and show some damn class.
Or maybe, just maybe, do something for the public good to get those votes. Its a jackass strategy for a Jackass representative. What do you expect?
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 pm[...] Think Progress quotes nutcase Virgil Goode (emphasis mine): Let us remember that we were not attacked by a nation on 9/11; we were attacked by extremists who acted in the name of the Islamic religion. I believe that if we do not stop illegal immigration totally, reduce legal immigration and end diversity visas, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to infiltration by those who want to mold the United States into the image of their religion, rather than working within the Judeo-Christian principles that have made us a beacon for freedom-loving persons around the world. [...]
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 pmAGAIN,
HYPOCRISY is the foundation of this Country.
"Bring us your sick, huddled masses...", but don't expect US to help you, and in fact, if your sick or poor, DON'T COME.
Exercise your religion freely, BUT when pushed, you BETTER thank the Almighty-baby-Jesus-Santa, or else face extreme prosecution by your fellow citizens...
How disgusting.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:59 pm20 Words,
“You can’t back down. You can’t chicken out. You can’t be afraid. You got to have faith in Allah, and you’ve got to stand up and be a real Muslim,†Detroit native Keith Ellison said to loud applause.
Would you get all warm and fuzzy if he said God and Christian instead of Allah and Muslim?
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:59 pmPublic promotion of his religion, and publicly swearing in with the Quran. Get it? PUBLIC! God you’re stupid!
Comment by 20wordsorless
No christian member of congress has ever promited his religion in public. Your own quote says nothing about the Ellison using the Quran in a public swearing in. He was speaking in public, that's about it.
You sure talk a lot for someone called 20wordsorless. F**kwit.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:02 pmWhere do you think those principles of the enlightenment period came from?
Comment by 20wordsorless — January 2, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
Well, if I remember correctly, many of them were imported from the Middle East following the Crusades.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm#59
Many of our founding fathers were practicing Christians. Their ideals, principles and values had their roots in the teachings of the Bible. Their personal writings are filled with references to God and Jesus and Biblical morality. Those influences can be seen in our Constitution and other documents. To divorce these facts from our freedom and attribute it to the enlightenment period alone is nothing more than politically correct garbage. When you stop redefining terms and revising history I'll take you seriously.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:06 pmThe Bill of Rights must mean absolutely nothing to Goode. I'm glad he keeps shooting himself in the foot on this issue, though. By and large, I believe the American people aren't buying it. The revenge bloodlust surrounding 9/11 is really starting to tame down (thank god).
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:08 pmWould you get all warm and fuzzy if he said God and Christian instead of Allah and Muslim?
Comment by dlet
No. My issue is with the double standards. You'll condemn Christians for this behavior and give Ellison a free pass.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:12 pm#68 20Words -
This entire post is really about a bigoted, fear-mongering Congressman from Virginia, who has still not gotten over having to give those uppity 'neegroes' their freedom and now we have to deal with those uppity Muslims.
He has a right to say what he wants, but it sure shows his true lack of respect for diversity and his ignorance.
BTW, 20Words, Do you share his feelings?
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:14 pmNo. My issue is with the double standards. You’ll condemn Christians for this behavior and give Ellison a free pass.
Comment by 20wordsorless
So the issue is if a man practicing Islam should be able to be sworn in on the koran and a man saying that he shouldn't because it shows the terrorists are winning and he should swear in on a bible. And you are saying that I am giving double standards and condemning christians. I say let him swear in on the Bible of Sex if he wants to. I would love to see how you come to your conclusions but I get sick on roller coasters.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm#66
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 pmJanuary 4th, 2007 is the official date for the 110th congress to convene. All new and returning members will be sworn in. This is not a private ceremony. Goodes comments were not in regards to any private ceremony, and to my knowledge Ellison did not say anything about a private ceremony unless he revised his original statement. The word private was added here by Judd ... c**t.
these republican cultists claiming to defend American values and beliefs with their bigotry and hypocrisy are disgusting. They are as foreign to American values as any religious fundamentalist extremist.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm.
No. My issue is with the double standards. You’ll condemn Christians for this behavior and give Ellison a free pass.
Comment by 20wordsorless
So, are you happy that we live in such a free country that Ellison can swear in on any book that hee chooses to or not any for that matter?
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm“In Gold We Trustâ€
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:36 pmThis is why Virgil Goode tops ,a href="http://www.perrspectives.com/features/angel.htm">"The Avenging Angel's List."
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm20 Swordless,
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:37 pmAren't you hanging in the wrong crib?
Go find a nice religious site that you agree with everything said.
You're not getting anywhere here, particularly defending some dipshit like Goode.
By the way, I voted for Ellison. I'm proud of that.
My Grandfather, Dad, myself and my Son have all serverd our county honorably. I'm proud of that, too.
You see, we're Americans. Open to new cultures, ideas & even religions.
You Neopricks have missed the whole point of being an American.
It's not about staying the same or preference over one religion or another. No. It's about welcoming all people and all religions, just like our founding Fathers envisioned.
Religion has been the trigger for most of our planet's wars.
Think about that. (Can you think?)
It's time to start practicing coexistence, not 'moral superiority' based on an outdated and highly suspect doctrine.
You should get out more. People actually talk without fear in the real world. You'd change all that, eh?
Well, we're not buying it anymore.
New Sheriff in town, Swordless. They're called DEMOCRATS.
How's that sit with you? I thought so. Well, you better get used to it, becasue the next President will be, too.
Now, go back to your closet and do some thinking.
"In God We Trust" has nothing yto do with the founders of this nation
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:40 pm20wordsorless sez:
What 20wordsorless fails to mention (either because he's ignorant or deliberately obfuscating...you be the judge) is that all these members will raise their right hands and swear to uphold the Constitution.
Neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, has ever been part of the official swearing-in ceremony. They are used in unofficial photo-ops only.
Well, 20wordsorless? How do you respond?
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:44 pmThis entire post is really about a bigoted, fear-mongering Congressman from Virginia, who has still not gotten over having to give those uppity ‘neegroes’ their freedom and now we have to deal with those uppity Muslims.
He has a right to say what he wants, but it sure shows his true lack of respect for diversity and his ignorance.
BTW, 20Words, Do you share his feelings?
Comment by upside00
Wow!
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:44 pmHow did you get all of that out of Ellisons comments? I only saw his concern over the departure of our nations traditions, By Ellison's introduction of the Quran.
So, are you happy that we live in such a free country that Ellison can swear in on any book that hee chooses to or not any for that matter?
Comment by dlet
I'm happy to live in a country where Ellison is free to be a muslim. I'm not happy that he is encouraged to alter our traditions by swearing in with his hand on the Quran. By the way, swearing in with your hand the Bible is opptional. He is certainly free to not use any book.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:51 pmOops!
I meant to say Goodes comments in #81 instead of Ellison's
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:53 pmBy the way, swearing in with your hand the Bible is opptional. He is certainly free to not use any book.
Comment by 20wordsorless
Which version of the bible is acceptable?
By the way let me remind you of something you said earlier.
No. My issue is with the double standards.
Comment by 20wordsorless
Your comments suggest that you have issues with your own issues.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:56 pm20wordsorless sez:
As I made very clear in post #80, swearing-in on the Bible is not part of the official ceremony...only of unofficial photo-ops. But of course, you've resorted to studiously ignoring me, as you find it impossible to refute my arguments.
Oh, this is good. Let me get this straight...he's not required to use the Bible, but he's prohibited from using another religious text? What sort of 'tradition' is that? And exactly which 'Bible' are we talking about here? King James Version? New International? What about the Book of Mormon?
You really do make it too easy.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:03 pmGoode is completely correct and the PC BS must stop. The koran is not compatible with the US constitution as it is a book that makes slaves of all who follow it. Thank God someone has the nads to speak out against this well documented evil.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:07 pmyolo sez:
Apparently, you haven't read your Bible all that closely. You might want to do that before you continue to spout your dogma.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:12 pmBy the way let me remind you of something you said earlier.
No. My issue is with the double standards.
Comment by 20wordsorless
Your comments suggest that you have issues with your own issues.
Most religious people do because the evidence around them directly contradicts their ancient religious dogma.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:12 pmLet us reflect upon the words of some of our founding fathers:
"Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another." - Benjamin Franklin
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." - Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst." - Thomas Paine
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." - Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt in 1813
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:15 pm#84
Which version of the bible is acceptable?
That is probably your most ignorant comment yet.
The double standards I was addressing were with the usual attack on Christians, and the free pass given to Ellison's comments.
Preserving our national tradition of swearing in with a hand on the Bible, and resisting the introduction of the Quran is not a double standard. Should we allow the Book of Mormon, or the Satanic Bible? How about the Unibomber's Manifesto? To follow your logic, we should allow every conceivable religious writing into our oath of office ceremonies.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:16 pmThe koran is not compatible with the US constitution as it is a book that makes slaves of all who follow it.
Comment by yolo
Please explain how the Christian Bible (choose your own version) is compatible with the US Constitution and the Koran is not.
I think both are compatible in the meaning that they both should have no influence on our government.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:17 pm#92 - "To follow your logic, we should allow every conceivable religious writing into our oath of office ceremonies. " Comment by 20wordsorless — January 2, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Then that means that your logic should preclude any religious texts to be used in the swearing ceremony.
If you don't want to allow people to use the text of their choice, don't give them the option of using any text at all.
See! Simple problem, simple solution!
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:20 pmTo follow your logic, we should allow every conceivable religious writing into our oath of office ceremonies.
Comment by 20wordsorless
Yes. If the people want to elect someone that will place their hand on a Chilton Repair Manual for a '60 Mustang, a copy of Mein Keimpf or a holy book of their choice then they get who the ask for. Anyway as haas been stated before and you have yet to answer...the ceremonies when we see the elected place their hands on books are private ceremonies. The official ceremony happens in Congress and they swear to uphold the Constitution sans books for the hands.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:26 pm#92
That's a perfect example of the tyranny of the minority. A few are offended by a practice, so we change the rules to suit them.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 pm20wordsorless sez:
I'm going to keep repeating this every time you attempt to push this 'oath of office ceremonies' crap down our throats, dolt:
Neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, has ever been part of the official swearing-in ceremony. They are used in unofficial photo-ops only.
Get it yet? Your 'oath of office ceremonies' where the 'tradition' is to swear on a Bible has no official basis. It is entirely voluntary for all members.
In case you don't believe me, here's the test of Article 6, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution:
Prohibiting using a Qur'an during this unofficial photo-op is discrimination based on religion, which is in violation of the First Amendment:
Do you get it yet, 20wordsorless?
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:30 pmWhich version of the bible is acceptable?
That is probably your most ignorant comment yet.
Comment by 20wordsorless
Why is this ignorant? You seem to be okay with limiting the choice of books to religious books then from all those to just the Christian Bible. So following your logic I was wondering if there was a specific version of the bible, since there are a few, would be acceptable to you. But I guess logic might since like ignorance to you.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 pmVirgil H. Goode, Jr.
70 East Court Street
Suite 215
Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151
Mr. Goode,
I find it to be a shame on the people, not just of your state, but of this nation, that you continue to hold office. I read your op-ed piece in the USA Today in regards to the letter you wrote last month in reference to Mr. Ellison’s wish to swear into office with the Quran in hand. You state very clearly that you have no empathy for people who do not share in your “Judeo-Christian principles.†If you are not aware, sir, there are over 6.1 billion people in the world, of those, over two thirds do not believe or follow your so called “Judeo-Christian principles.†And the percentage of people who believe in your “principles†is dropping, quickly, all around the world.
You also state, as if it were a matter of fact that the United States was attacked on 9/11 by “extremists who acted in the name of the Islamic religion.†You clearly use this so called fact as a means to gather your forces against your foe, a battle cry of sorts. Much like the witch hunts of old. There is something I believe you should come to terms with; the evidence against the so called “hijackers†is completely circumstantial, an absolute fabrication, and an outright lie to the people of the world. (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/)
In the Muslim faith, sir, it is a “grave sin†to kill innocent people, women or children. But that fact, as well as the others found in the link that I gave you above, does not serve your purpose, does it? And before you denounce the link without reading its contents, I suggest you read the names of the people who contribute to the site. (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html)
If you wish to push your “principles†on to the people of this nation, and come out against Muslims (and the world for that matter), I recommend you get to know your “god†and your “enemy†a bit more. You will find that the Quran and the Bible are the same. They speak of the same “principles,†the same intolerance for any indulgence; the same violent past; the same bigotry; the same beliefs, with different names.
As I stated in my last letter, I am an atheist, myself. On top of that, I’m a former U.S. Marine, a period of time which will go down in the history of my life as an un-repairable error of my own doing. Since leaving the Marine Corps, I have learned tolerance, compassion, peace and understanding. Qualities that your bigoted views clearly show you do not possess. However, as I’m sure you know, every tolerance has its limits. And I find your tenure in office, and your bigoted views to simply be intolerable. Something that I hope your constituents will soon agree with.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 pmAnswer this question dlet,
Would you like to see a majority of Christian Fundamentalists elected to Congress and the Senate?
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:35 pm20wol, let me throw you a life line..
The Bible is an acceptable text. Now, lets examine that:
Torah (Old Testament, part of the Bible, According to Jews, and most Christians)
New Testament (continuation of the Bible, according to Christians)
Quran (continuation of the Bible, according to Muslims)
Book of Mormon (continuation of the Bible, according to the Mormons)
So, 20, which PART of the Bible should elected officials use?
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pmWould you like to see a majority of Christian Fundamentalists elected to Congress and the Senate?
Comment by 20wordsorless
No. I wouldn't. They would probably try to impose religious dogma on US law. Like telling people that they can only use a Christian Bible to swear into office or some other wacko stuff like that.
Are you implying that Ellison is an Islamic Fundamentalist because he will use the Koran during his private swearing in ceremony?
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:44 pmrobert, how was that a 'life line'? Your 'life line' is tied to an anvil!
I'm just wondering if 20wordsorless will notice that before he grabs that line and ties it around his waist...
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:45 pm#
Answer this question dlet,
Would you like to see a majority of Christian Fundamentalists elected to Congress and the Senate?
Comment by 20wordsorless — January 2, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
my answer is no, for the same reason I don't want to see a majority of Muslim or Jewish fundamentalist elected to congress and senate. I believe in the separation of church and state.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:45 pm#102
You call that a lifeline? You're obviously attempting to further complicate the matter. There's this whole thing of God inspired text vs. man inspired text that scholars have been debating for centuries. Have you ever heard of the canon of scripture? It's why the Bible is considered to be the word of God. It is also historically accurate. The same can't be said for the book of mormon and many other religious writings.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:01 pm#105
Care to elaborate? Why don't you want to see a majority of these religioius types in office?
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:03 pm20wordsorles sez:
Hoo boy. One of those.
Suddenly, your earlier idiocy makes perfect sense.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm#105
Care to elaborate? Why don’t you want to see a majority of these religioius types in office?
Comment by 20wordsorless — January 2, 2007 @ 3:03 p
Try reading comprehension, not your strong suit I will admit. Read the last sentence slowly and carefully over and over again until you get it.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:09 pm52 20WOL
The founding fathers have often been misquoted in order to make them appear to be Christians using their faith as a basis for U.S. law. For example, the Jefferson Memorial has one of his quotes which fails to take into account the whole contest. Here is the full quote with the part in the monument highlighted:
"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as
President] 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." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.
Just because you can do a word search and find "God" or "faith" or "Christianity" in the writings of a founding father does not mean he advocated accomodation of religious beliefs into U.S. law.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:09 pmHoo boy. One of those.
Suddenly, your earlier idiocy makes perfect sense.
Brilliant argumentation TripMaster--assume your position to be correct and deny everything else.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:11 pmCareful, Krazny....back 20wordsorless into a corner forcefully enough, and he will resort to plugging his ears with his fingers and shouting 'lalalalala I can't hear you!' as he as obviously done in regards to me.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:13 pmHey 20 or less, how bout less. Like -6.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:14 pm#107,
You are right, my "life line" was a sick joke.
But, the Quran is also considered God Inspired (Allah). The Quran recognizes all the same prophets as the Bible; it just does not recognize Jesus as the "son of God", the Immaculate Conception or the Ascension. Jews do not subscribe to this either. Therefore the Quran is still a viable Religious text.
Canonization of the scriptures was done for the benefit of Christians by Christians during Constantine’s era. Many texts were left out as they did not jive with the concept of Jesus' divinity.
Remember, I say all this as a Christian.
Long and short of it. Ellison, as a U.S. citizen, has the RIGHT to use whatever he would like. THAT is the baisis of what the founding Fathers wanted for this nation.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:16 pmThe founding fathers have often been misquoted in order to make them appear to be Christians using their faith as a basis for U.S. law blah blah blah... Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
Oh brother! this argument is as old as it is falacious. You are the one using the misquotes, and this has been proven over and over again. You should really start looking into things for yourself.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:17 pmBrilliant argumentation TripMaster–assume your position to be correct and deny everything else.
Comment by 20wordsorless — January 2, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
You believe the Bible to be historically accurate, Which means you assume your position to be correct and deny everything else. Please go be a whacko somewhere else.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:17 pm20wordsorless sez:
By upholding Scripture as the literal word of God, and claiming it to be historically accurate, that exactly what you're doing.
I hate debating religious zealots...their position as a zealot puts them at a fatal disadvantage when attempting to take part in a rational discussion. It's altogether too easy.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:17 pmIt’s why the Bible is considered to be the word of God. It is also historically accurate. The same can’t be said for the book of mormon and many other religious writings.
Comment by 20wordsorless
Brilliant argumentation TripMaster–assume your position to be correct and deny everything else.
Comment by 20wordsorless
Reading these you would never think they came from the same person. He speaks 20 words and they all contradict each other.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:22 pmWell said Robert, we don't always agree on everything, but the scriptures placed in the bible were decided at the counsel of Nicea, previous to that a huge debate over the divinity of Christ had raged through the Christian Church.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:22 pmTry reading comprehension, not your strong suit I will admit. Read the last sentence slowly and carefully over and over again until you get it.
Comment by Krazny
My reading comprehension is just fine. I was hoping for some more specific reasons from dlet. The separation of church and state thing is too general. It's a safe, noncommital answer.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:23 pmI was hoping for some more specific reasons from dlet. The separation of church and state thing is too general. It’s a safe, noncommital answer.
Comment by 20wordsorless
Safe or not its a major one. If a religious fundamentalist faction ever came in to control of our government our country would slide towards the end. Anytime you have a group of people that believe in group think and can not be swayed from their viewpoint through debate and argument it can only lead in one fatalistic direction.
If you want specifics, they would probably make religious teachings mandatory in school and include creationism into the sciences, make charitable institutions backed by the government preach the word to those that come for those services, use religious reasons to make diplomatic decisions, start wars for religious ideals, say that God chose them to lead the country...wait some of these are already happening.....well you get the idea.
I hope thats enough specifics for you.
Would you now care to answer my question to you in 103?
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:36 pmTripmaster,
I don't expect you to believe the claims of the Bible--it has been the source of controversy for a long time. But know this, the study of the original languages of the Bible, how the events parallel recorded history, and what it all means are vast subjects. History and science have proven many of the Bible's claims. My point is that there is far more to this subject than you will ever understand or give credit to. You want to dismiss anyone who believes the Bible as an irrational zealot, but nothing could be further from the truth. Far greater minds than yours have devoted their lives to it's study.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 pmOh brother! this argument is as old as it is falacious. You are the one using the misquotes, and this has been proven over and over again. You should really start looking into things for yourself...Comment by 20wordsorless
OK, where do you suggest I "look"? Where has your position been "proven over and over again"?
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:41 pm#122
Thanks for your answer dlet I agree, the country would slide towards the end. I think that probably echo's Virgil Goode's fears as well. In answer to your question, No I don't believe Ellison to be an Islamic Fundamentalist.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:47 pmMy concern is that he is setting a precident, and possibly paving the way for future fundamentalists. I'm worried about the future ramifications of Ellisons actions.
My concern is that he is setting a precident, and possibly paving the way for future fundamentalists. I’m worried about the future ramifications of Ellisons actions.
Comment by 20wordsorless
Yes, his using our country's freedom to practice any religion he so desires really undermines what this country was founded. Get real. The only way this will hurt the future generations of the US is if radical idiots stir fear in people and we start to pass laws that limit religious practice. Religion and the government are to be separate.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm20words,
How do you know Ellison is a fundamentalist? And speaking of fundamentalists, all forms are dangerous.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:01 pmWow!
How did you get all of that out of Ellisons comments? I only saw his concern over the departure of our nations traditions, By Ellison’s introduction of the Quran.
Comment by 20wordsorless
20Words,
Yes, I did get that (and I assume you meant (Goode's comment, not Ellison's), as Virg is wanting to stop immigration, both legal and illegal, except for Europeans. And to stop any Muslim immigration, based on religion, is not only unconstitional, it is impossible. Just exactly what does a Muslim look like anyway?
And you never did answer my question about whether you share his racist and fear-mongering beliefs.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:02 pmOT:
Did I just catch Chris Matthews patronizing Clinton on MSNBC during Ford funeral at airport by telling Andrea Mitchell Clinton LAUGHED at someone who claimed by wanted to be President for the "honor of it" (something to that effect). I thought, "My God, Chris Matthews thinks he could read Clinton's mind and apply a NEGATIVE NARRATIVE to what he THOUGHT CLINTON was thinking when he laughed..." Just another crappy example of Chris Matthews trying to "write history" out of THIN AIR!
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:03 pmThe only posters the RNC can get are those ones I have mentioned before. Those experimental primates in university labs have been given internet access. Surprisingly the apes didn't immidiatly go to the banana-related websites, they all became Republicans.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:25 pmyou know...unlike Macaca the Noose, he waited until after the election to show his true colors. Otherwise, we whould have had one more House seat.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm#66
January 4th, 2007 is the official date for the 110th congress to convene. All new and returning members will be sworn in. This is not a private ceremony. Goodes comments were not in regards to any private ceremony, and to my knowledge Ellison did not say anything about a private ceremony unless he revised his original statement. The word private was added here by Judd … c**t.
Comment by 20wordsorless — January 2, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
The OFFICIAL swearing-in does not involve any books. Incoming members to Congress are sworn in en masse and raise their right hand when they take their oath. In the PRIVATE ceremonies (with family, friends, supporters...) following the official swearing-in, many incoming congressmen repeat their oath using a book, and not necessarily the Bible. (Jewish Congressmen do not take an oath using the Bible). Ellison will use the Koran at the PRIVATE ceremony. So, what is the problem? Would you prefer him to swear on a copy of "Hustler"?
Before you make ignorant comments, educate yourself as to what the official swearing-in ceremony entails.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:38 pm20wordsorless sez:
Certainly...astrology and phrenology are vast subjects too. It doesn't make them any more valid.
And conclusively disproved many, many others.
Not true. I nearly want to dismiss anyone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible as an irrational zealot.
And those minds generally come to the conclusion that the Bible, being internally inconsistent, riddled with inaccuracies, and fraught with errors in translation as well as outright rewriting by unscrupulous individuals for personal gain, cannot be trusted.
You seem to be trying to make the assertion that to be a biblical scholar is to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. This assertion is patently false.
While it is true that some parts of the Bible are historically accurate, it is also true that the vast majority is not. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
If you can provide us with objective evidence that the Bible is literally true, and that other holy texts are literally false, you will have grounds for demanding the Bible as the only book present at swearing-in ceremonies. Until then, spare us.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:53 pmNew Yorker sez:
Don't waste your breath, New Yorker. 20wordsorless doesn't seem to understand (or want to understand) the fundamental difference between an official, public, binding ceremony of oath and an unofficial, private photo-op.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:55 pmWhatever happened to "Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free" ?? Now I guess the republicans want "Bring me your rich, western European types who just want a vacation home and already speak English. Just don't send the Muslims or the Mexicans, cause we don't like brown people."
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:00 pmThis web site is obviously stacked with Liberal Moonbats who haven't a clue as to the danger that Islam will present to America in the future.
Sven
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:21 pmAs someone who followed a link to here from Americablog... give 20wordsorless a job with an NFL field crew--he moves goalposts like no one else!
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:33 pmGee a website funded by a liberal, advancing liberal/progressive causes, is gulp stacked with liberals what a concept. Sven if you don't like it hang out with the monkeys at free republic, oh wait you can't post there unless you toe the line, well how about power line, no not them either well shoot I am out of ideas.
=P
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:34 pm"Far greater minds than yours have devoted their lives to it’s study."
It does not take a great mind to differentiate between "ITS" -- the possessive pronoun and "IT'S" -- the contracted form of "IT IS".
It should be "its" study, not "it's" study.
The next time you want to be snarky, dust off your grammar books first.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:44 pmThe funny bit, is many other cultures have say a flood myth in their mythologies. Using 20words spurious logic, this would mean that they are accurate as well. The Native Americans, have a flood story, and I believe the Hindus do as well.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:49 pmThis man is obviously a bigot whos position is supposed to uphold the very principles he now publicly debases, ie freedom of religion, speech, representation etc.. Surely his constituents are not all bigots and closed minded racists and so it is up to them to get rid of his ...representation. Surely their views could be better represented by someone who has more tact and class than this loudmouth 'much to do about nothing' low life.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:11 pmGOODE NEEDS AN EMERGENCY ENEMA.........WITH A HAND GRENADE!!! Repugs are such hate-mongers.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:17 pmSven, stop drinking the kool-aid. Start thinking for yourself.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:56 pmFunny, those who seek to remove the Bible from all public forums, defend the use of the Quran in the same…
Comment by 20wordsorless
What an idiot! The photo-op that is a swearing in ceremony can use ANY book for this purpose. Any Book 20words. Yes sir, the bible should be out of our schools and congress, but an elected congressperson can use a phone book at the ceremony. No problem. Are you really that dense that you cannot see the difference? There are situations where holy books are completely appropriate and necessary, but not in places prohibited by the Constitution. It is very simple - but then again reading your posts it appears you are rather simple too.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:15 pmThis web site is obviously stacked with Liberal Moonbats who haven’t a clue as to the danger that Islam will present to America in the future.
Sven
Comment by Sven
But we have you to help us understand, don't we Sven? God, what a chickenshit!
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:17 pm#64 DieNowForPeace; "Democracy is hypocrisy"-Malcolm X
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm20wordsorless,
History and science have not proven many of the bible’s claims. Your point is a complete farce stated to block others from thinking that they can respond. The bible uses historical places and events in what appears to be an attempt to give it credibility.
For example; we know that Egypt and the Pharos existed, not only do we have an ample amount of archeological and written evidence, but we have some of their bodies for crying out loud. However, the bible speaks of the Pharos enslaving 500,000 Jews, and that Moses freed them.
1. There is no evidence that any Jews ever lived in Egypt in that time. None. 500,000 people, with no trace they were ever there, other then that the bible says they were there.
2. Outside of the bible, there is absolutely no evidence written or otherwise that Moses ever actually existed. None. Absolutely zero.
What’s the bible without Moses? No Mt. Sinai, no ten commandments, no parting of the Red Sea.
You see? Just because a place existed (and\or still exists) doesn’t mean that we should believe any story written about them. Especially stories thousands of years old, written by people who believed the world was flat; that slavery was acceptable; the earth is the center of the universe, and on and on.
If you are a religious person, history and science are by default your mortal enemies.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:31 pmPlease, do not entertain 20orlesswords about the historical authenticity of the Bible. He does not have a clue about the scholarship on the subject. Nor does he have a clue about the official swearing-in of new congressional members. He is not worthy of an intellectual debate as his intellect is non-existant.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:45 pmIf you are a religious person, history and science are by default your mortal enemies.
Comment by Elvis
Only if you equate "religious" with "Biblical literalist". Sprirituality, history, and science are different areas of truth that can overlap but are nonetheless distinct.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:45 pmNew Yorker,
I'm not entertaining him, he or she is entertaining me.
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:03 pmThis is simple problem to fix. Ensure religion, all types of religion, are not mixed into government in any way. period. No bible, no quran, no religious symbols or riturals. in fact, lets make it illegal for religion to even come into contact with politics.
what will happen, we will have peace in america. no war for religion, no fighting about what is right according to my god or your god.
teach religious history in school, the facts of all religions and how they came to be and we will grow a nation of kids that will see the truth about the myth of gods. in a country with so much power and ability, we actually believe in a god.....Amazing
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:28 pmParanoid Psychopaths have no place in law.
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:58 pmCan we invent a time machine to send this guy back to the 1950s or 1800s or where ever he belongs!
Just shoot this guy out of a cannon and hope it shoots him back to the ancient place he is from. Just listen to this guys voice and accent.
Good point, beijair.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 pmSven, stop drinking the kool-aid. Start thinking for yourself.
Comment by Elvis
It's hard to think when your pants are so piss-soaked.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:49 pmThe vast majority of the people here have never learned about islam. I have studied islam since my best friend was murdered by the barbaric cult of sex and murder. Please read the koran. It is not a religion and no muslim should ever hold any position of power anytwhere on earth. Read about the grand mufti of Jerusalem and the new mufti of Australia. islam is a evil cult and the PC movement is destroying the world. Thank God Europe is waking up.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:08 pmIt’s hard to think when your pants are so piss-soaked.
Comment by Zooey
Zooey thats hilarious.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:13 pmElvis, New Yorker, Tripmaster and dlet,
Your ignorance of Church history, the Bible's authenticity, and the scholarship regarding just only these two topics is astounding. There are literally tons of examples of honest scholarship as well as tons of examples of dishonest scholarship regarding every aspect of every conceivable Bible related subject from history, to doctrine, to application. There are great minds who believe, and great minds who don't. It's been that way from the beginning. Christianity is filled with those who earnestly seek the truth, and also filled with those who cling to and embrace error. Your implictions that only a mindless zealot would actually believe the Bible only shows your incapacity to deal with all of the facts.I could provide lots of quotes and links for you. I could list several books and refer you to several debates that prove the historical accuracy of the Bible and the high level of scholarship involved. But to what end? Will you believe? Will your level of respect for me increase? I doubt it. This would only become a text dumping contest with enormous posts, that no one will read. At the end of the day I will still respect your right to disagree and to not believe, and you will remain incapable of respecting anyone who doesn't agree with you.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:47 pm20 Words -
How old is the earth? Do you believe in creationism or evolution? Is science something to ignore? Do you let your children go to a school that teaches any of the non-biblical approaches?
Do you live in Crawford?
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 pmWould have been better in the original German, Amos
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 pmThe Bible says that the moon is a light source. Anyone want to defend that one?
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:54 pm"rather than working within the Judeo-Christian principles that have made us a beacon for freedom-loving persons around the world." Ow sure, forget about slavery, slavery has been gone since the Middle Ages....not. Even today blacks still suffer from the White principles that made the US a beacon of wealth. Love had nothing to do with it, bitches.
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:07 amThe only posters the RNC can get are those ones I have mentioned before. Those experimental primates in university labs have been given internet access. Surprisingly the apes didn’t immidiatly go to the banana-related websites, they all became Republicans.
Comment by ForTruth
I take offense to this statement. I went to BigBananna.com first.
January 3rd, 2007 at 9:05 amit's such a danger that we'll be infiltrated by our enemies that our glorious leader is recruiting foreigners for our Army......hmmm, wonder where that idea came from? That's right--Hitler's regime recruited Arabs to bolster their military in the 30's. They were later used to mount a failed insurgency against the Brits in Iraq, one member of which was an uncle of soon-to-be dictator--Saddam Hussein. no six degrees there.
January 3rd, 2007 at 9:47 amFact is that the Koran and subsequent documents plus Fatwahs call for Jihad as a way to stop the "enemies" of Isalm. Congressman Ellison swore on the Koran. Which will he obey: the Koran or the Constitution? BTW, Congressmen Ellison is part of the Nation of Islam which is a radical Islamic group. There is no way that he can be considered a liberal or even a moderate as part of the Nation of Islam and be a faithful supported of Islam.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:28 pmLook,
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:09 pmVirtually every elected official to come from Minnesota has been sincere, honest, and totally dedicated to the greater good. To list the most prominent, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and Paul Wellstone. To descend into the depths of prejudice and hubris as evidenced in the attacks on this duly elected official warrants only pity on those who make them. The post 911 agenda of the bushies and their supporters, resulting in the apprent suspension of the Bill of Rights, and the morally apprehensible slander of loyal, dedicated, and duly elected individuals to Congress is truly beyond reproach. 99.9% of all Muslims in the world are law abiding and benign adherents to the core values of Islam and certainly intend no harm to the US or any other group of people.
Get real, y'all!
Sincerely, Ted.
Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.
In my home country of Canda, a man named Ezekiel Hart was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canda. Being a Jew, he elected to swear the oath of office on a copy of the Torah. He was promptly expelled from the legislature on the grounds that oaths of office could only be taken on Christian Bibles by those professing the Christian faith.
That was in 1807.
We Canadians consider that to be among the more shameful parts of our history.
I'm glad to see our friends south of the border are challenging the bigotry of a few of their countrymen and not allowing the mistakes of two centuries past to be repeated in our time.
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:26 pmThe bible call for murder unbelievers. Goode swore on the Bible. Which will he obey?
January 4th, 2007 at 9:34 amfor #58
You don't know Kieth Ellison, do you? I've know Kieth for more than 10 years and proudly voted for him. I didn't vote for him because is a Muslim; I voted for him because he is a hard-working young man who is thoughtful, creative and committed to justice and peace for ALL. Why should I be ashamed of voting for him? I am proud I voted for him. I've voted in 24 House of Representative elections and I have NEVER voted for a candidate in whom I've had more confidence. The nation is better off for him serving us.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:02 amthis just proves that one must not be literate to hold office in "this reat land." THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "the Islamic" religion. there is Islam--a conceptual community, much like when Christians say "the Church;" and there is/are Muslim/s. Muslim is both a noun and an adjective.
this ignorant boob should be run out of office, and shipped off to Austria, where black folks are banned from most night clubs because (as we all know) all black folks are drug dealers--contrary to ALL statistical evidence and arrest records (which show that more than 80% of drug dealers in Austria are Caucasian, Austrian/European). he will fit right in...in a land of Whitey simply making up reality based upon his own BIGOTED fears. or perhaps he would prefer we round up all Muslims, and jail them in detention centers like we did with Japanese Americans during WWII? Hmm? take a page from Israel's big book of tolerance and human rights?
Fascism and Nazism is alive and well here in the land of illiterate Cowboy Presidents and nearly extinct Amer-Indians. SO FREAKIN' SAD!!!
January 4th, 2007 at 4:28 pmI am completely shocked that more citizens of our great country and congressional representatives have not taken a vocal stand against this bigot. Goode embodies hypocrisy.
January 4th, 2007 at 4:39 pmDouglas, DO YOU KNOW WHAT A FACT IS? have you EVER studied Islam? read the Qur'an? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT A FATWA IS??? a fatwa is a legal opinion or ruling issued by an Muslim scholar. do you know what jihad is? what it means? it means struggle. there are greater and lesser jihads: the greater jihad is within ourselves--those issues with which we struggle in our hearts every day, like how to be a good person, or how to live in such a way as to honor God and make oneself useful in the world; the lesser jihad is those things with which we struggle outside of ourselves, like how to move through the working world without giving up one's ideals, or finding the time and motivation to attend political protests, or placing human dignity above monetary/material gain.
you are ignorant, and really should educate yourself before adding ALL BOLD postings to pages intended to promote communication and understanding. you only make our point with your ham-handed actions.
January 4th, 2007 at 4:46 pmDolly Williams
I think you hit the nail on the head with this.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:38 pmToby
The pen is really mightier than the sword, as you have proven here.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:04 pmTotally Free Full Version To Fix My Pc Errors
Tips On How To Improve Memory
March 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 6:06 pmJack
Truer word have never been uttered, indeed. Your point is sound and excellent. Thanks for sharing.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:39 pmChanda
After surfing the web for hours, its really nice to someone with a brain about things i'm intested in. Thanks for the intellectual inter....your get the idea.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pm