Wade Burleson on Multiculturalism

[Alan Carter]

Here's about a little party at the White House tonight that I'm sure Wade would enjoy reading about:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 0-05-12-56

And then yet another vacation for Obama:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ation.html

I can sure think of a good place to start cutting spending--the White House!

[Sandy]

Here's about a little party at the White House tonight that I'm sure Wade would enjoy reading about:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 0-05-12-56

And then yet another vacation for Obama:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ation.html

I can sure think of a good place to start cutting spending--the White House!

Bush took weeks at a time at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. While the economy was tanking, he was out riding his horse.

I don't have a problem with the President taking 10 days to go to Martha's Vineyard. He's still on the job 24-7 regardless. Congress isn't scheduled to be in session, most senators and representatives are home avoiding town halls after what happened to John McCain in Tucson a couple of days ago.

The Ramadan dinner has been a White House tradition for quite some time, one which Bush, the darling of the conservative religious right, not only continued to support, but at which he declared that Islam was a legitimate path to God along with Christianity and Judaism. He must have missed his religious briefing that day. If you want to blast him for this, then you have to give Bush the same blasting, or give them both credit because Obama has continued the tradition of inviting pastors and Christian leaders to the White House for a prayer breakfast.

[Alan Carter]

Sorry but I hardly think Obama works on any of his multitudes of vacations. At least Bush's ranch was a working ranch. What else is there to do in Crawford, Texas?

If you can't see that Obama is cuddling up to the Muslims then there is no sense anyone pointing it out to you...

On another note, I'm fixing to go to the Texas Rangers game tonight and sit right behind Nolan Ryan--and I could care less about anything Obama, Pelosi, or any other Democrat is doing. I'll worry about all of that in the morning.

Wish me luck boys!

[Sandy]

If you can't see that Obama is cuddling up to the Muslims then there is no sense anyone pointing it out to you...

That's because there isn't any evidence of such that you can point out. His involvement with Muslims of any kind is far less than Bush's, who was intimately involved in business dealings with them on a daily basis, and who had several prominent Muslims on the board of directors of the oil company he was involved with. If you'd been at a Rangers game a decade or so ago, when he was part owner of the team, you may have seen him in his sky box with one of his favorite Shieks from Saudi Arabia. Perhaps the influence of the dollars in his pocket, most of which he made in business dealings with Muslims, was why he was so adamant that Islam is as legitimate a path to God as Christianity or Judaism.

This "cuddling up to Muslims" crap is just more radio dee-jay anti-Obama propaganda.

[David Montoya]

Wade,

I wonder if the adherents to Islam make vows they cannot keep?

As long as the American Constitution is the law of the land, American does not have to fear sharia law. This is why it is so hard to change/modify or add to the Constitution. I am more fearful of Christian religious leaders and politicians attempting to usurp the Constitution than I am of adherents to Islam!

[Haruo]

Here's about a little party at the White House tonight that I'm sure Wade would enjoy reading about:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_PREVIEW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-10-05-12-56

"The dinner became an annual White House tradition under President Bill Clinton and was continued by President George W. Bush. The White House says invited guests include religious and grass-roots leaders in the Muslim-American community as well as leaders of other faiths and elected officials." The White House Iftar is not partisan (either as to domestic politics or as to religion. Both seeing it as objectionable and seeing it as Obama's doing are ridiculous.

[Gene Scarborough]

Being a prejudiced-against-Muslims citizen (we have some here) and being President of the United States of America are vastly different. One of the groups this President serves is the American Muslim community and it is simply good statesmanship to respect the world group of Muslims as well. When JFK said, "Ich ben ein Berliner," did anyone accuse him of being a Nazi except Texas idiots???? Neither should idiots be saying "he is a Muslim" when he is trying to indentify with leaders of a most troubled part of this world. When he is in Rome, do as the Romans do for the moment!

You can't be a redneck and President at the same time----unless you are a Texan!!!

Now I have looked at both Bush and Reagan wield a chainsaw / ax as I do. It's all for show boys----all for show. Both those gentlemen could not make it on the farm/ranch for anything. They both have their hair too well-quafed for one thing. Guys who do tree and farm work are sweaty and dirty and don't come to the table until after a good shower in the evening. Ask my wife If you have any questions! Check their hands for calouses as a final determination. A sweaty shirt is the real clue. If anyone can show me a picture of a dirty Republican with sweat and chips all over him, I will gladly change my opinion. Even then, I will look closely to see if it's all over or just sprayed around the edges by a handler.

Some of this discussion is just-----totally naive!!!

[Neil Heath]

If you can't see that Obama is cuddling up to the Muslims then there is no sense anyone pointing it out to you...

That's because there isn't any evidence of such that you can point out. His involvement with Muslims of any kind is far less than Bush's, who was intimately involved in business dealings with them on a daily basis, and who had several prominent Muslims on the board of directors of the oil company he was involved with. If you'd been at a Rangers game a decade or so ago, when he was part owner of the team, you may have seen him in his sky box with one of his favorite Shieks from Saudi Arabia. Perhaps the influence of the dollars in his pocket, most of which he made in business dealings with Muslims, was why he was so adamant that Islam is as legitimate a path to God as Christianity or Judaism.

This "cuddling up to Muslims" crap is just more radio dee-jay anti-Obama propaganda.

Thanks, Sandy. Well said!

[Jim]

Now I have looked at both Bush and Reagan wield a chainsaw / ax as I do. It's all for show boys----all for show. Both those gentlemen could not make it on the farm/ranch for anything. They both have their hair too well-quafed for one thing. Guys who do tree and farm work are sweaty and dirty and don't come to the table until after a good shower in the evening. Ask my wife If you have any questions! Check their hands for calouses as a final determination. A sweaty shirt is the real clue. If anyone can show me a picture of a dirty Republican with sweat and chips all over him, I will gladly change my opinion. Even then, I will look closely to see if it's all over or just sprayed around the edges by a handler.

Some of this discussion is just-----totally naive!!!

It’s hard to imagine anything sillier than this post. I’m a republican but I also wore a dirty shirt and a dirty face a lot of years before I retired and I was a republican then. I was a locomotive engineer operating the freights between Cincinnati and Chattanooga. The young people I worked with, many of them vets especially of Vietnam, were my world and they were men. The older ones I worked with were WWII vets and I suspect they could also operate a chain saw. My military was done in the late 40s during peace. They’d seen their share of blood. They (and I, too, when I was also a switchman and brakeman) worked in all kinds of weather, getting off and on moving equipment, climbing ladders at high speeds when necessary, putting up with incompetent officials, and all the rest. Bush I was a decorated veteran (He flew the TBMs, “flying coffins” off of carriers) and Bush II was a qualified fighter with more than two years of active duty.

You give naivete a brand new enhancement, so enjoy. Hopefully, you’ll escape from your self-serving arrogance and join the people, especially those who can operate a chain saw and not think themselves superior to all the world.

[Alan Carter]

Its such a joy to watch you Democrats rush to the defense of your now defenseless President. He's a joke and you know it and is as pro-Muslim as you can get.

BTW, I went to the Rangers game last night and sat 6 rows behind President and Laura Bush--and thought of you guys the whole time. I know you would have enjoyed it if you had been me.

[Sandy]

Its such a joy to watch you Democrats rush to the defense of your now defenseless President. He's a joke and you know it and is as pro-Muslim as you can get.

BTW, I went to the Rangers game last night and sat 6 rows behind President and Laura Bush--and thought of you guys the whole time. I know you would have enjoyed it if you had been me.

Blah, blah, blah. Offer some credible evidence. The ex-president you sat behind the other night holds the record for the number of Muslims he hosted in the White House, among them, many of his former colleagues in the oil business. They had way more influence when he was in office than they do now.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -congress/

A lot of that anger seems directed toward the GOP. According to the survey, favorable views of the Republican party dropped eight points over the past month, to 33 percent. Fifty-nine percent say they have an unfavorable view of the Republican party, an all-time high dating back to 1992 when the question was first asked.

The poll indicates that views of the Democratic party, by contrast, have remained fairly steady, with 47 percent saying they have a favorable view of the Democrats and an equal amount saying they hold an unfavorable view.

"The Democratic party, which had a favorable rating just a couple of points higher than the GOP in July, now has a 14-point advantage over the Republican party," adds Holland.

Looks like it's not the President who is "defenseless."

[Jim]

Without reference to any president or any party (Bush did the same thing), the celebration or recognition of Ramadan is a travesty on the country and blasphemy toward God. The Koran is a damnable document created by an illiterate pedophile and mega-polygamist (maybe sex-addicted as per the crazy designation adopted by athletes lately) for the purpose of setting up a cult of murderers to take over as much trade and traffic as possible in Saudi salad days. It’s a direct and heinous insult to the military who die at the hands of people praising a false god and celebrating American deaths in the process. Think Major Hasan at Ft. Hood. Celebrating Ramadan is tantamount to celebrating the slaughter he carried out of defenseless and innocent American citizens as he screamed his praise to Allah. So…the warm-fuzzies and hugs all around for people who dare not deny what their “holy book” says and whose fathers kill their own daughters are okay for the knuckleheaded political correctness crowd but not for me.

[Neil Heath]

Jim, rants like yours are pushing the bounds of this forum as far as I'm concerned. As a moderator, I don't see any need to allow such near-slanderous posts to stay here. I suggest you tone things down or see them removed in the future.

It's one thing to be angry, it's another thing to vent all the spleen you possibly can in broad, untrue generalizations of an entire people group. We certainly have no room to point fingers at non-Christians for their bad attitudes and behavior when we exhibit that here as well as you have. Even curmudgeons can be circumspect in their posts if they work at it a bit.

Civility of discourse on these fora is not too much to ask and expect.

[Sandy]

Without reference to any president or any party (Bush did the same thing), the celebration or recognition of Ramadan is a travesty on the country and blasphemy toward God. The Koran is a damnable document created by an illiterate pedophile and mega-polygamist (maybe sex-addicted as per the crazy designation adopted by athletes lately) for the purpose of setting up a cult of murderers to take over as much trade and traffic as possible in Saudi salad days. It’s a direct and heinous insult to the military who die at the hands of people praising a false god and celebrating American deaths in the process. Think Major Hasan at Ft. Hood. Celebrating Ramadan is tantamount to celebrating the slaughter he carried out of defenseless and innocent American citizens as he screamed his praise to Allah. So…the warm-fuzzies and hugs all around for people who dare not deny what their “holy book” says and whose fathers kill their own daughters are okay for the knuckleheaded political correctness crowd but not for me.

From a purely religious perspective, as a Christian, unlike former President Bush, I do not see Islam as a legitimate path to God. But then, I don't see Mormonism or Buddhism or Judaism as legitimate paths to God, either.

But Muslim practices and beliefs are constitutionally protected. The argument that Wade is making here is similar to that of a lot of reconstructionists, that America was founded as a Christian nation, and that the constitutional provision of religious liberty only applies to the various denominations and divisions of Christianity, and those civil rights do not extend to the adherents of non-Christian religions because that wasn't the original intention of the founding fathers.

While it is very true that Christianity, especially Protestant Christianity, was an overwhelming influence in the founding of America, and that the principles of our democracy that were put in place are much more due to the influence of Christianity, rather than the influence of the enlightenment, it is also very clear that religious liberty was not just meant for Protestant Christians, and that the founding fathers intended to protect the religious beliefs of all Americans, whatever religion they practiced, including those who practiced none.

I do believe that the limits on religious freedom would restrict many of the practices of Islam, simply because Islam does not recognize those basic human rights, and carrying those things out would be in conflict with the law. Former Major Hassan found that out. So did Warren Jeffs. The constitution and the system of interpreting it put in place by the founding fathers works.

So the President invited some Muslims to the White House to a dinner that ended their Ramadan fast. So what? If I'm not mistaken, he invited some rabbis to come and have a seder at passover, and he puts up a Christmas tree and has a prayer breakfast with some Christian ministers and probably prays before meals. None of those things "represent" anything.

Muslims do have a problem with their militant, radical wing, but someone sitting down to dinner with Muslims doesn't mean they are celebrating what Major Hassan did.

[Haruo]

BTW, I went to the Rangers game last night and sat 6 rows behind President and Laura Bush--and thought of you guys the whole time. I know you would have enjoyed it if you had been me.

Glad you enjoyed thinking about us so much. Hope you didn't mind being distracted from the game and the great company. But if we had all been you, my guess is the seat would have been obliterated by our combined weightiness.

I'm not a great fan of Obama's, but I must say the stuff you allege against him is ridiculous. He is no more "pro-Muslim" than the next guy. Especially if you mean "pro-Islamist", which is more or less to say "pro-al-Qaeda". Not sure where this notion comes from, but it is so ridiculous I don't think it needs rebuttal here. I don't think he's even particularly pro-Erdoğan.

[Dave Roberts]

Jim, rants like yours are pushing the bounds of this forum as far as I'm concerned. As a moderator, I don't see any need to allow such near-slanderous posts to stay here. I suggest you tone things down or see them removed in the future.

It's one thing to be angry, it's another thing to vent all the spleen you possibly can in broad, untrue generalizations of an entire people group. We certainly have no room to point fingers at non-Christians for their bad attitudes and behavior when we exhibit that here as well as you have. Even curmudgeons can be circumspect in their posts if they work at it a bit.

Civility of discourse on these fora is not too much to ask and expect.

As a moderator, I join Neil in this warning. Jim, your comments are outside the bounds of civil discourse.

[Gene Scarborough]

Alan---

If you sat that close to George Bush, why didn't you go down as ask him if he is enjoying his wealth and that of his buddies after a 4 year busted economy has resulted? Ask him if he is advocating jail terms for those who violated the SEC Regulations and cooked books to lure investors to the slaughter. Then, you would have been representing a bunch of us here!

Jim---

I apologize for any insinuation that might be taken as "no Republican really gets sweaty or dirty at real work." I was simply referring to George Bush and Ronald Regan. The latter was a well-trained actor and the former was trying to take his cue, in my opinion. Reagan got out of Iran-Contra because the press just liked him and didn't want the hassle given them over Nixon's illegal activities. Even the press gets weary of being constantly called "liberal liars criticizing such good Republicans." When Rush Limbaugh and his ilk stop their profanity and name-calling, we might just see some better attitudes among the listening public.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: To Neil H. and and Dave R.: While I can agree that Jim C. has a tendency to over state his case regarding Muslims, Keep in mind that Jim and I have disagreed regarding the proposed Mosque in the vicinity of the former WTC. I would much rather see one or the other, or both of you engage him in an attempt to change his biased opinion rather than to issue such heavy handed warning against expressing his opinion as appears above in this thread. Choosing not to engage him in discussion for what ever reason, I believe it would suffice to simply insert a highlighted statement, saying, The opinions stated here by Mr. Clark do not reflect the thought and positions of the the moderating staff of this site.

I honestly think Jim's "rant" has being singled out unfairly it light of other stuff that slides by.

[Gene Scarborough]

I think Neil and David are being most fair, in my opinion.

Just send him a good case of Kosher wine since the meds aren't working---or perhaps good NY fresh grape wine!!!

[Jim]

Jim, rants like yours are pushing the bounds of this forum as far as I'm concerned. As a moderator, I don't see any need to allow such near-slanderous posts to stay here. I suggest you tone things down or see them removed in the future.

It's one thing to be angry, it's another thing to vent all the spleen you possibly can in broad, untrue generalizations of an entire people group. We certainly have no room to point fingers at non-Christians for their bad attitudes and behavior when we exhibit that here as well as you have. Even curmudgeons can be circumspect in their posts if they work at it a bit.

Civility of discourse on these fora is not too much to ask and expect.

That is exponentially pathetic. Here’s the rule:

2) No hate language or speech is allowed. Although pointed exchanges are to be expected, malicious attitudes towards other users will not be tolerated. Persons of varied ethnic and religious backgrounds participate in and/or browse the forums. Christ makes it clear that we are to love one another; accordingly, please do not speak derogatorily of individuals or people groups.

In the first place, there was no hate language, just a stating of facts. I did not call anybody, especially anybody in this forum, by any derogatory names, except for Mohammad, who was a pedophile, a statement of fact, and not in this forum anyway. As a for instance, Sandy has called George Bush everything under the sun but a man, with no warning of any kind. I’ve been called my share of names, as well. Just check out Scarborough sometime, whose symbol of disagreement he exhibits as manure and has described what I post as such. I’ve never done that. Why haven’t these people been warned? Actually, they don’t bother me in the least because I’m pretty straightforward myself and have a thick skin. I’m not the least bit impressed by your self-righteousness in this threat or that of any other moderator. So that there be no doubts, I stand four-square behind what I posted and would only add that, while I do not hate Muslims, I do hate Islam and what it stands for, which essentially is the death of the infidel, of which I am one, as well as the members of my family. Islam is not a religion but a movement so it has no protection under the First Amendment as far as I’m concerned and I have every right to that opinion. Now, as you try to get rid of me (and it’s not all that hard to ban me) give the same treatment to others who have transgressed to the same or greater extent in jarring a few nerves.

By the way, does this mean that we never speak derogatorily about the political parties or government officials or SBC folks or take cheap shots at politicians – all individuals or in people groups? If so, goodnight, Gertrude! I’m still laughing. I hope I haven’t traumatized anyone into suffering PTSD account having sensitivities about Islam herniated.

[Neil Heath]

Ed: To Neil H. and and Dave R.: While I can agree that Jim C. has a tendency to over state his case regarding Muslims, Keep in mind that Jim and I have disagreed regarding the proposed Mosque in the vicinity of the former WTC. I would much rather see one or the other, or both of you engage him in an attempt to change his biased opinion rather than to issue such heavy handed warning against expressing his opinion as appears above in this thread. Choosing not to engage him in discussion for what ever reason, I believe it would suffice to simply insert a highlighted statement, saying, The opinions stated here by Mr. Clark do not reflect the thought and positions of the the moderating staff of this site.

I honestly think Jim's "rant" has being singled out unfairly it light of other stuff that slides by.

I shall reply to Ed, since he seems open to a response.

Jim does indeed dramatically, vehemently overstate his case. I see no need to engage someone who has demonstrated repeatedly that he has no intention of changing his mind (see his response to me). I note that he quoted the forum rule most applicable to his behavior and saw no problem with his post.

[And Ed, if we inserted your suggested sentence each time it was true, it would show up an awful lot, would it not? Rather, I would submit that the truth of that is quite evident without our saying so.]

My concern was partially what he said, which I still say is mostly opinion, not fact. I was also concerned, and have been for some time, about the way he says what he says. It is hostile, mean-spirited and doesn't invite any response or dialogue. A person with his gift for words could express himself so much better and engage us in dialogue instead of diatribes.

I think he comes awfully close to a line that has caused us to ban several people in past years. In the other cases, it was their attitudes and refusal to listen to any suggestion that they tone it down, etc. that got them the boot. I did not threaten to ban Jim, but I did suggest that I might delete similar posts in the future.

I'm sure the mods will end up discussing this privately before it's all over. If I'm out of line, they'll certainly let me know.

[Gene Scarborough]

Since I was mentioned as a case in point by Jim, I will take note and try to do better. I am confident he can too. He often makes things interesting and I welcome his input---just under a little more control.

[Haruo]

I am on record as opposing bans, and I'm fairly sure if it comes to that I'll vote against banning Jim.

I'll say that as far as I can tell Muhammad was a pedophile in a time and place where pedophilia was the norm, and I'm still waiting for a response on how old Abishag was.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: To Neil H. and and Dave R.: While I can agree that Jim C. has a tendency to over state his case regarding Muslims, Keep in mind that Jim and I have disagreed regarding the proposed Mosque in the vicinity of the former WTC. I would much rather see one or the other, or both of you engage him in an attempt to change his biased opinion rather than to issue such heavy handed warning against expressing his opinion as appears above in this thread. Choosing not to engage him in discussion for what ever reason, I believe it would suffice to simply insert a highlighted statement, saying, The opinions stated here by Mr. Clark do not reflect the thought and positions of the the moderating staff of this site.

I honestly think Jim's "rant" has being singled out unfairly it light of other stuff that slides by.

I shall reply to Ed, since he seems open to a response.

Jim does indeed dramatically, vehemently overstate his case. I see no need to engage someone who has demonstrated repeatedly that he has no intention of changing his mind (see his response to me). I note that he quoted the forum rule most applicable to his behavior and saw no problem with his post.

[And Ed, if we inserted your suggested sentence each time it was true, it would show up an awful lot, would it not? Rather, I would submit that the truth of that is quite evident without our saying so.]

My concern was partially what he said, which I still say is mostly opinion, not fact. I was also concerned, and have been for some time, about the way he says what he says. It is hostile, mean-spirited and doesn't invite any response or dialogue. A person with his gift for words could express himself so much better and engage us in dialogue instead of diatribes.

I think he comes awfully close to a line that has caused us to ban several people in past years. In the other cases, it was their attitudes and refusal to listen to any suggestion that they tone it down, etc. that got them the boot. I did not threaten to ban Jim, but I did suggest that I might delete similar posts in the future.

I'm sure the mods will end up discussing this privately before it's all over. If I'm out of line, they'll certainly let me know.

Ed: So Neil are you going to start editing every thing on these boards that is opinion rather than being fact or at least supported by fact and who is is the final arbitrator of FACT. To do so would make this a very different site than it has ever been.

Exactly what is Jim's "attitude" that you find so out of line. If in fact it is his belief that Islam is a false religion is wrong, why do we support missionaries to Muslim territories, whose primary assignment is to preach Jesus as the one and only savior of the world . And is not denying him the privileged of expressing his opinion a form of censorship? I and maybe you, do not believe that the typical Muslim is as "anti infidel" as Jim does but I do believe there are in fact those who use their religion to support and cover terrorist activity. The sticky wicket is how do we know which are which?

[Haruo]

Fethullah Gülen sounds almost like Solomon:

A woman whose heart is illuminated with the light of faith and whose mind is enlightened with knowledge and social breeding builds her home anew each day by adding new dimensions of beauty to it. A dissolute woman who doesn't know her true self destroys existing homes and turns them into graves.