Wade Burleson on Multiculturalism

[Gene Scarborough]

I think we have a fair and balanced group of Moderators well able to note excess.

For a year before joining the discussions here, I was a SBC Voices. There moderation is so one-sided it's not funny. Vile things are said with a vile spirit by certain most conservative and set-in-concrete attitude people.

I was representing the more moderate side of Baptist life and drew vile commentary. I gave back what I was given and was moderated off. Their syle of blog reflects a definite bias which I have never seen here and don't expect to---but there is a resonable limit clearly stated in the rules of discussion.

I think it is reasonable and reasonably enforced only when extremes creep in. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Neither do we need such "pretended sweetness" that we can't back up differences with facts. From the beginning of the Christian faith, even the Disciples became disagreeable at times and Jesus corrected them with love and example.

[Ed Pettibone]

I think we have a fair and balanced group of Moderators well able to note excess.
...
...

I think it is reasonable and reasonably enforced only when extremes creep in. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Neither do we need such "pretended sweetness" that we can't back up differences with facts. From the beginning of the Christian faith, even the Disciples became disagreeable at times and Jesus corrected them with love and example.

Ed : Do you mean extremes such as in;

Re: Global Warming Thread XV

New post by Gene Scarborough » 11 Aug 2011, 14:19

David---

I would call that both crude and malicious.

[Wade Burleson]

Gentlemen and Gentlewomen ,

Since 2006 and my first experience with Baptist Life I have learned a great deal from all commentators, including Hauro, Big Daddy, and the moderators of the forum who, though not always agreeing with me, have been fair.

I welcome the criticism of my post on multiculturalism, and am taking in the points of offense from perspectives of those who despised what I wrote. Interestingly, I am considered by my fundamentalist friends a "liberal" and by my liberal friends a "fundamentalist." Regardless, I believe that both sides are Christian and my brothers and sisters in Christ and I learn from all who have been gifted by the Holy Spirit and that includes everyone I've met on-line in this forum.

My wife tells me that sometimes my writing does not come across the way I intend because the reader has no perspective about me the author. In other words, she says that sometimes my point is missed because my words are misinterpreted as to my meaning. The misinterpretation is not always the reader's fault--sometimes my writing is weak.

So....

Having seen this particular post of Big Daddy divert from the original criticism of my post, I thought I might chime in and say "Thanks" to all who have commented on my post and make one FINAL attempt to make my point in a clear, succinct, and unambigious manner without any history, Scripture, or comment. The following is a true, sincere, question.

"Why do Baptists, who were so emphatic on "separation of church and state" in the 1700's, receive with either welcome arms or stony face silence radical Muslims becoming U.S. citizens and/or government leaders, Muslims who desire to place their hand on the Koran when swearing an oath, Muslims who by the very nature of their Islamic faith CANNOT separate their belief system from their desire to dominate the state and American culture--not to mention the world and world culture--with Islamic law and principles?"

In my opinion, all Baptists, liberal and convservative, should shout from the rooftops the danger we are seeing in this world of secular states becoming radical Muslim states (i.e. Turkey).

[Sandy]

Almost anything I can find on Fethullah Gulen from neutral sources show him as being opposed to radical Islam, committed to "dialogue" between Muslims and other religions, particularly Judaism and Christianity, whom he references as "people of the book," and placing the emphasis of Islamic teaching on the moral values and away from what he and many Sufis consider to be the more "barbaric" aspects of Islam. It seems that virtually no one who has first hand knowledge of him considers him to be either "radical" or a threat to the authority of the constitution or the rule of law. Nor does he seem to be doing anything to Turkey except influencing it away from radical Islamic extremism.

That's not a justification of the legitimacy of Islamic teaching. However, to cite Gulen as an example of why there is a rush to pass legislation prohibiting Sharia Law, and further, as an example of the "Pro-Islamic" sympathies of President Obama completely undermines the credibility of those who are making the claim. It makes them appear that they haven't done their homework, and it makes you wonder where they are getting their mis-information and why they are intent on spreading it.

[Dave Roberts]

Gentlemen and Gentlewomen ,

The following is a true, sincere, question.

"Why do Baptists, who were so emphatic on "separation of church and state" in the 1700's, receive with either welcome arms or stony face silence radical Muslims becoming U.S. citizens and/or government leaders, Muslims who desire to place their hand on the Koran when swearing an oath, Muslims who by the very nature of their Islamic faith CANNOT separate their belief system from their desire to dominate the state and American culture--not to mention the world and world culture--with Islamic law and principles?"

In my opinion, all Baptists, liberal and convservative, should shout from the rooftops the danger we are seeing in this world of secular states becoming radical Muslim states (i.e. Turkey).

Wade, I can only speak for myself as one life-long Baptist, and I recognize that others will disagree. First, I am opposed to allowing any imposition of Muslim practice on the American experiment just as I am opposed to the imposition of Christian (or biblical) legal codes. It is vitally important to maintain a secular republic in which all are free to practice their religion whether I would agree with it or not.

Second, I am absolutely convinced that Christians have the best chance to reach Muslims with our own faith by being hospitable neighbors who undo the stereotypes of Christians out to fight every Muslim presence and practive in our communities. Dialogue with Muslims will help us to better understand their faith and help them to understand ours. I have personally been in the local Islamic center and have had the Immam in the church I was pastoring for a special event.

Third, it is vitally important to learn the may different types of Islam that are practiced in our world. Islam has no central authority structure, so there are many factions ranging from the radical killers of 9-11 and other such events to the peaceloving folk who have come to this country seeking to live in our freedom structure. Some of these groups that are important to understand are the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Wahabi, and the Sufi. They are about as widely divergent as Catholics are from Pentecostals.

Fourth, I believe that to reach any Muslim's for Christ will demand that we "show them a more excellent way," to borrow Paul's phrase from his sermon in Athens. It will not be by our arguments that we will reach them. It will have to be through the quality of our living reflected in the ways we treat them. We will also need to demonstrate a devotion that exceeds the devotion that most Muslioms practive.

Your question, Wade, deserves a lot of carefully wrought dialogue.

[Haruo]

"Why do Baptists, who were so emphatic on "separation of church and state" in the 1700's, receive with either welcome arms or stony face silence radical Muslims becoming U.S. citizens and/or government leaders, Muslims who desire to place their hand on the Koran when swearing an oath, Muslims who by the very nature of their Islamic faith CANNOT separate their belief system from their desire to dominate the state and American culture--not to mention the world and world culture--with Islamic law and principles?"

I agree with Sandy that what I can find from nonpartisan (i.e. neither rabidly anti-Muslim nor with an axe to grind in terms of Turkish politics) sources on Fethullah Gülen does not support your take on him. I have not yet perused all the references you provided, so something may yet surface. He does not appear to be particularly "radical" in his Islamic notions. If you have seen how Democrats, unionists and leftists in the US have spoken of Reagan and the Bushes, and how Republicans, talk radio hosts and rightists in the US have spoken of Carter, Clinton and Obama (heck, throw in Gore for good measure!) then you should have some idea how to interpret the statements of Turks who find themselves on the minority end of things. You describe your friend in Turkey as a "liberal". I forgot to ask (or note) whether he is also a Muslim, or a Christian, or an agnostic, or what; these things affect how one approaches statements about Gülen or Erdoğan. If he is a Muslim of any sort, then how can you place any credence in what he says?

Is Gülen a US citizen? I don't think so. And I do not see any sign that radical Muslims are becoming US government leaders; the Turks have their own government, which Gülen has been active in influencing. I think for a duplicitously minded nominal Muslim to swear on a Koran will have about as much deleterious effect on American culture and civilization as for a like-minded nominal Christian to swear on a Bible. I think in a secular state we should take a cue from Jesus and let our Yes be Yes and our No be No anyway... Some of your colleagues in the SBC seem to me to be at least as great a threat to women's rights in the US as anything out of the Gülen movement. Yet, though you write against their views, I don't see you advocating for removing their citizenship rights... even though they may by the very nature of their Christian faith be hell-bent on imposing their notions of women's proper roles and men's headship on American society.

[Neil Heath]

"Why do Baptists, who were so emphatic on "separation of church and state" in the 1700's, receive with either welcome arms or stony face silence radical Muslims becoming U.S. citizens and/or government leaders, Muslims who desire to place their hand on the Koran when swearing an oath, Muslims who by the very nature of their Islamic faith CANNOT separate their belief system from their desire to dominate the state and American culture--not to mention the world and world culture--with Islamic law and principles?"

In my opinion, all Baptists, liberal and convservative, should shout from the rooftops the danger we are seeing in this world of secular states becoming radical Muslim states (i.e. Turkey).

Several thoughts come to mind,
1- Many Baptists are no longer as emphatic on separation of church and state as in the 1700's, though I dearly wish they were.
2- There is a difference between becoming a citizen and becoming a government leader. I thought all faiths were welcome here.
3- I have no problem with a Muslim swearing on his/her holy book. What good is an oath on the Bible to one who doesn't follow it?
4- I'm not sure your portrayal of the Islamic faith is accurate. As Dave mentioned, there are many varieties of Islam, and we can't lump them all together any more than we can say what all Baptists practice, since there are probably at least a hundred kinds of Baptists out there.

I know your question was why do Baptist act that way, and I'm not sure I can answer that for you. I've never been able to explain Baptists very well.
5- Muslims aren't the only ones out there with a belief system that desires to dominate the state and culture. I fear Christian Reconstructionists as much as any group out there, perhaps more, because they are much more likely to sway American Christians to follow them than are the Muslim extremists among us.

[Neil Heath]

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.

No, and I didn't edit Jim's post, either. I do appreciate it when people state that their post is opinion, and when they supply sources if they present facts. I am mostly urging a greater degree of civility in whatever is posted here.

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?

I've answered this part already, Ed. One can state an opinion without being combative, hostile, or insulting of those being discussed. All I did was warn Jim that I felt he was pushing the limits and that further posts like that might be removed.

I didn't threaten to ban Jim, but did say in my response to you, Ed, that similar behavior had led to others being banned. As I recall, they refused to change their behavior and instead pushed harder instead of backing off. I think you'll find that moderating here tends to be much more tolerant than many other boards out there.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

"Why do Baptists, who were so emphatic on "separation of church and state" in the 1700's, receive with either welcome arms or stony face silence radical Muslims becoming U.S. citizens and/or government leaders, Muslims who desire to place their hand on the Koran when swearing an oath, Muslims who by the very nature of their Islamic faith CANNOT separate their belief system from their desire to dominate the state and American culture--not to mention the world and world culture--with Islamic law and principles?"

In my opinion, all Baptists, liberal and convservative, should shout from the rooftops the danger we are seeing in this world of secular states becoming radical Muslim states (i.e. Turkey).

Wade, you've noted that you're a student of history. I am too. Based on your understanding of history, how is this argument that you've put forward - which argues that Muslims "who by the very nature of their Islamic faith CANNOT separate their belief system from their desire to dominate the state and American culture - any different from the arguments made against Catholics and Catholicism by Protestants during the first six decades of the twentieth century?

JFK was forced to promise a group of Baptist pastors in Houston that his loyalty was not to the Vatican!

Pick up Southern Civil Religions in Conflict by award-winning historian Andrew Manis. Manis argues that Catholicism and Communism were the two twin "issues" or "evils" that frightened white southerners, especially Southern Bapitsts, the most. These Southern Baptists made the argument that Catholics by the very nature of their Catholic faith could not separate their belief system from their desire to dominate the state (Catholic-dominated countries weren't exactly known for their "secular" state that adheres to church-state separation either). These Southern Baptists worried that a Catholic President - with his ultimate loyalty to the Pope - would result in the end of America.

The arguments really are very similar, Wade.

Now to a few of your other points:

I do not believe that we should welcome or grant citizenship to any Muslim (or any person) supportive of terrorism. Are we doing this? Is this documented somewhere? Unless you buy into a nutty conspiracy theory like Obama is a secret Muslim intent on turning America into an Islamic state, then one must admit that the government obviously has a compelling interest not to do what you imply is happening (granting "radical Muslims" citizenship).

Yes, I'm concerned about the threat posed by radical Islamists. And while I'm concerned about all forms of extremism, I'm not one to downplay the threat of Islamists. My sister teaches elementary school to kids who live on the Fort Hood base. Her husband, my brother-in-law, is a police officer with the Killeen Police Department that recently arrested Nasser Jason Abdo. Abdo is said to have been planning to bomb locations in Killeen frequented by military personnel. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that his targets included places where my sister, 5-year-old nephew and brother-in-law regularly visit as Killeen is not a large town and they live in a military neighborhood with many commercial retailers in close proximity.

But, while recognizing the threat of radicals, I don't see the need to restrict First Amendment freedoms to those here in our country of the Muslim faith. I also don't see any evidence that Sharia law is somehow making its way into our society and our courts. I don't see Muslims attempting to oppress Christians here in the U.S. Actually, I do see evidence of discriminatory acts by Christians against Muslims. Since 9/11, practically any town with a Muslim population - big or small - can attest to at least a few incidents where Muslims were targeted in some way. Of course, Muslims are not the only minorities to experience discrimination.

I also can't reconcile your arguments with my own personal experiences. I've had at least a couple of Muslim friends at every stage of my life. I grew up with Palestinian Muslims in my home - citizens of Israel - who believed in church-state separation and interfaith dialogue. I had many sleepovers with my good friend Aki in middle and high school. His father was from Pakistan. They didn't desire to impose their culture on anyone. They too appreciated the rights and freedoms granted here in the U.S. Similar stories can be said about other Muslim friends while at the University of Georgia and several Muslims friends I made while living in the diverse, extremely multicultural city of Atlanta.

Do you personally have Muslim friends? If so, do your Muslim friends want to takeover the United States and impose Islamic law on American society?

Your argument about the nature of Islam reminds me of Lynn White. Back in the late 1960s, historian Lynn White penned an article that was published in dozens of popular outlets including Science magazine and Readers Digest that blamed the environmental crises of that day on Christianity. White's argument was based on one particular interpretation of what "dominion" entails in the book of Genesis. "Dominion" in White's view did not mean stewardship but instead offered a justification for environmental exploitation and degradation.

Christian leaders - evangelicals and liberal Protestants alike - responded to White's claims and said, WHOA, that's a poor understanding of the nature of Christianity. There are many different interpretations of what "dominion" entails. It's not fair to blame all of Christianity based on the assumption that Christianity requires and justifies something that it does not for many people.

I think you've made a similar mistake to that of Lynn White. You incorrectly assume that the nature of Islam is something that it is clearly not for many many Muslims living in America. The presence of church-state separation loving Muslims who don't wish to impose their culture or their faith on American society proves your assumption is a false one and the "nature of Islam" is extremely complex especially when viewed from a historical perspective (same can be said about the "nature" and definition of Christianity).

[Wade Burleson]

Gentlemen and Gentlewomen ,

The following is a true, sincere, question.

"Why do Baptists, who were so emphatic on "separation of church and state" in the 1700's, receive with either welcome arms or stony face silence radical Muslims becoming U.S. citizens and/or government leaders, Muslims who desire to place their hand on the Koran when swearing an oath, Muslims who by the very nature of their Islamic faith CANNOT separate their belief system from their desire to dominate the state and American culture--not to mention the world and world culture--with Islamic law and principles?"

Your question, Wade, deserves a lot of carefully wrought dialogue.

Dave,

From the comments made since I posted the succinct question, I believe the carefully wrought dialogue is abundant, including your comment, Sandy's, Neil's, Haruo's, and Big Daddy's.

We all come from different backgrounds and perspectives. I have no problem with a Muslim being a citizen if he swears his allegiance to the Constitution, adopts the belief that Shariah law and the Muslim faith is subordinate to American courts, and fights against terrorism and any attempt to infringe on public liberty through blocking street traffic during Muslim prayers (France), broadcasting the wailing call to prayer within cities (as in Great Britain - which would send everyone in my part of the country scattering for shelter thinking a tornado was coming), or any additional Muslim practices that infringe on American culture.

What I can't figure out is why true Baptists, who above ALL PEOPLE, wish for there to always be a separation of church/state, do not speak out LOUDLY AND BOLDLY against the normal, typical Muslim belief that the STATE IS THE CHURCH (using "church" the way we would in our vernacular as Christians) and THE CHURCH IS THE STATE (i.e. Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Oman, Iran and a host of other governments that are exporting THEOCRATIC philsophy throughout the world).

I believe we are called by Christ to love all people, including our enemeis. But I also believe that we should not stand by and allow our ideological enemies (Muslims) to change American culture, government and freedom.

That, to Big Daddy, may sound "out there." To me, it sounds Baptist.

[Wade Burleson]

The presence of church-state separation loving Muslims who don't wish to impose their culture or their faith on American society proves your assumption is a false one and the "nature of Islam" is extremely complex especially when viewed from a historical perspective (same can be said about the "nature" and definition of Christianity).

Big Daddy,

I now see that we want the same thing.

We just disagree on the current number of radical Muslims in America and this country's future direction on how to prevent an increase of those numbers.

Frankly, if there are Muslims who love "church-state" separation they are not true Muslims. They are secularists who have an affinity for Islam.

And, that's not me saying that....

It's Muslims.

By the way, I don't have many Muslim friends. One Muslim, who is now Christian, that I consider a friend, is Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of the founder of the terrorist group Hamas and author of the book "Son of Hamas."

When he speaks on this subject of Islam in America, he makes look left of you Big Daddy.

[Sandy]

What I can't figure out is why true Baptists, who above ALL PEOPLE, wish for there to always be a separation of church/state, do not speak out LOUDLY AND BOLDLY against the normal, typical Muslim belief that the STATE IS THE CHURCH (using "church" the way we would in our vernacular as Christians) and THE CHURCH IS THE STATE (i.e. Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Oman, Iran and a host of other governments that are exporting THEOCRATIC philsophy throughout the world).

I believe we are called by Christ to love all people, including our enemeis. But I also believe that we should not stand by and allow our ideological enemies (Muslims) to change American culture, government and freedom.

Whether other states have a "theocratic" government or not should be of absolutely no concern to us. Other countries are sovereign, they can have government as they like it.

I know of no effort being made to change American culture, government and freedom into a theocratic goverment submitted to Islamic sharia law. Not all Muslims support the idea of theocratic states, and there are muslim countries in the world where that is not the case. You might want to take your Baptist argument for the separation of church and state to reconstructionists like David Barton, and the Rushdoony/Whitehead crowd who want to change American government and freedom and make it into a theocratic state. I see that as more of a threat to freedom than anything American Muslims have the power or inclination to do. I also see that as a threat to an independent, autonomous church.

[Jim]

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.

At least ninety percent of everything said in this forum is opinion, most often backed up by facts that are most often valid. I believe this is the aim of the forum. If one is not to express opinion, what is the purpose of the forum? You seem not to understand that tidbit even though you’re the moderator who has expressed all kinds of OPINION yourself. I have no intention of having any of my posts banned as long as you put up with the character assassinations and raw name-calling that goes on all the time in this forum and bothers me not at all, even though I’m the one most often targeted. Some in this forum make it practically a calling to prove that George Bush blew away the WTC on 9/11. That doesn’t bother me but it says a lot about them and you since you think it’s okay to call Bush a mega-murderer. See how dicey the censoring can be and how hypocritical the censors can be. The master at diatribes is Sandy but he’s on the right side of the question so he can say whatever he likes and the moderator agrees, therefore none of it is either malicious or a threat to the DECORUM and the tender sensitivities of the forum.

I was a part of this forum long before 2006, when posters didn’t have to do more than just have a handle. That was when folks just clicked on a site and responded to it. I think I used the simple JLC then but I could be wrong. Back then, when they finally had nothing of substance to say, Norm and MNorvell (RIP) used to mount their ad hominem attacks on me and I chuckle now as I think about that.

So…to spare you and the other mods the gleeful time spent to effect a ban, which is certainly what you have in mind, I will simply bow out with this, the last post. Have fun as you preach to the choir, something that is deadly boring to me.

[Neil Heath]

Perhaps you'll no longer post but perhaps you'll read...I'll reply to you once more on the chance you do.

I know it's opinion most of the time, even though it's usually stated as fact. And I know I do that too. I don't like the character assassination or name-calling either and fail to see the value in it. I do think you're wrong about being targeted the most. I think much of our readership ignores you because of the way you tend to post.

I'll ignore the Bush as mass-murderer comment since I've never said that. But don't assume that silent mods means that we agree.
Sandy expresses opinions I've liked and some I've disliked, but he does it in a more civil manner--though strongly worded.

I have not discussed a ban of you with any moderators, Jim, and that has not been my intention in raising the issue. I agree that there are others who express themselves in strong language here. Perhaps we as mods should be reining in more of it than we have. I'll try to do better. You probably aren't always aware when moderators have deleted posts or parts of posts more than once when we thought it was improper to let it stand. I was merely suggesting you needed to tone down the rhetoric a bit so yours wouldn't get zapped.

Perhaps it's just me, since I can't hear your tone of voice, but I often find in your posts an angry, almost irrational hatred of certain things that get your goat. Perhaps you are actually saying it in dulcet tones if I could hear you, but that's not how they come across. Others are welcome to express a different reading if I'm wrong on this.

I know you have a gift for words from the poems you post. I would love to see that same gift used to participate in civil dialogue instead of diatribes. Sometimes you do one, sometimes you do the other. I know which one will get your ideas heard and considered instead of ignored.

Neil

[Gene Scarborough]

I agree with the moderation approach and the reason for it. When the name calling starts, that's where I draw a line.

The President and Economy deserves commentary, but if I don't like Bush, I should keep the insult terms out. When the Obama haters start to use dirisive terms it insults a position we need to all honor. That's why the halls of Congress are full of hate, but the rules of address use "Mr. Speaker / Mr. President / Honorable Representative. If they can maintain that kind of respectful speech, so should we.

On the newcomer side, I give back what I get, but don't ever start the battle. If we go without any rules or moderation it can quickly degenerate to the level of some public commentaries like USA Today's religious section. That one draws extremes and emotion much greater than the differences, mostly used most of the time, here.

[Gene Scarborough]

While not exactly on target with the specific issue, this article says much about the church and it's relation to culture today:

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2011/08/11/eugene-peterson-lambastes-mega-churches-defends-mainline.aspx

In this case it addresses the "Religion of Prosperity."

[Haruo]

Wade, you speak of "Muslims who desire to place their hand on the Koran when swearing an oath, Muslims who by the very nature of their Islamic faith CANNOT separate their belief system from their desire to dominate the state and American culture…" Even the most church-state-separatist of us still prays "thy kingdom come, in earth" (okay, well, by now most of us say "on earth"). I am not clear how we differ from Muslims, whose desire to see God's laws obeyed in human society looks to me like the same principle at work. The specifics differ, but again, look at how the UCC's forebears treated ours.

[Chris]

The Republicans... the best way for them to do that would be to offer a candidate who has the brains and ideas to put up a reasonable opposition, but they seem to be going in another direction...most of whom don't stand a snowball's chance on a hot stove.

LOL.

[Chris]

In the America I came from, the Lone Ranger was a good guy, heck, even Zorro was a hero (though I'm not sure what his immigration status was).

Golden Spur material

[Chris]

What else is there to do in Crawford, Texas?

That's the most intelligent thing you've said all week, Alan.

[Neil Heath]

A little history of Presidents and Ramadan. Also interesting to learn that the Quran was a part of the Jefferson collection that became the Library of Congress. Here's the info from the US Dept. of State web site:

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/inbrief/2011/07/20110729153019kram0.3508199.html#ixzz1U4EHpDrE

In 1805, Thomas Jefferson hosted what some consider the first iftar at the White House.

“Ramadan,” said President Obama at a White House iftar dinner in 2010, “is a reminder that Islam has always been a part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.”

The dinner to which the president referred took place on December 9, 1805, and Jefferson’s guest was Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, an envoy from the bey (chieftain) of Tunis who spent six months in Washington. The context of Mellimelli’s visit to the United States was a tense dispute over piracy on American merchant vessels by the Barbary states and the capture of Tunisian vessels trying to run an American blockade of Tripoli.

Mellimelli arrived during Ramadan, and Jefferson, when he invited the envoy to the president’s house, changed the meal time from the usual hour of 3:30 p.m. to “precisely at sunset” in deference to the man’s religious obligation.

Jefferson’s knowledge of Islam likely came from his legal studies of natural law. In 1765, Jefferson purchased a two-volume English translation of the Quran for his personal library, a collection that became, in 1815, the basis of the modern Library of Congress.

(This is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/iipdigi ... index.html)

[Gene Scarborough]

Most interesting!!!

In a day that many colonies were based on that "Christian Faith" posited by conservatives, Jefferson was honoring the Moslem religion!!!

I think somebody missed an important part of Freedom of Religion and I thank you for sharing it!!!

[Haruo]

Well, I heard on the radio that Jefferson was secretLy a democrat, so it should come as no surprise to learn that, like Hussain Obama, he was also a thinly veiled Muslim.

[Mrs Haruo]

If Jefferson were a woman, he would have been a more thickly veiled democrat.

[David Flick]

If Jefferson were a woman, he would have been a more thickly veiled democrat.

That's a hilarious comeback, Mrs Haruo...