First Muslim Congressman

Discussion in 'The Real World' started by catocom, Dec 3, 2006.

  1. catocom

    catocom Well-Known Member

    IMO there are many people that just don't see that this country is on it's
    way to being taken over in the way Khrushchev said, are in for a surprise.
    (from the inside out)

    PC seems to be one of the main devises too.,2933,233983,00.html
  2. chcr

    chcr Too cute for words

    Sorry, but if you even want to pretend that there's freedom of religion then what's the problem? If I were elected to Congress I wouldn't swear on the bible or the koran.
  3. SouthernN'Proud

    SouthernN'Proud Southern Discomfort

    Because like it or not, some things are just wrong. Like it or not, while we have freedom of and from religion in this country as citizens, it is still a nation founded on Christian principals.

    What I want is an explanation from the blithering idiots who elected this jerk.
  4. Gonz

    Gonz molṑn labé Staff Member

    Swearing in on a Koran isn't the problem. Usurping tradition in favor of PC is though.
  5. 2minkey

    2minkey bootlicker

    for the millionth time...


    it's founded on humanist principals. any basic history book should make that clear.
  6. SouthernN'Proud

    SouthernN'Proud Southern Discomfort

    And for the millionth time, your history book is full of lies.

    Quakers were not humanists. Humanistic reasoning is dangerous and fallable. You've been warned, do as thou wilt.
  7. spike

    spike New Member

    Chrsitian religions have some pretty huge faults. Like making people intolerant of other religions as in this case.

    Best candidate maybe? Why do you think he's a jerk?
  8. unclehobart

    unclehobart New Member

    What?! a Muslim congressman?! The nerve. The next thing you know they will be electing women, jews, catholics, darkies, and Hillary.
    1 person likes this.
  9. catocom

    catocom Well-Known Member

    IMO the freedom of religion a person enjoys, should stay out of gov., other
    than what is tradition.
    I do believe this country was founded in Christian beliefs, and the more that
    changes with that, the more the foundation crumbles.
  10. chcr

    chcr Too cute for words

    Then what you're really saying is that we are a christian theocracy and that anyone who isn't one should shut the fuck up? I know, why don't we just make it illegal to be a non-christian. I'm sure that's just what our founding fathers intended. :rolleyes:

    Sorry cat, this is America and I'd like to keep it America. Countries like Iran and Afghanistan are theocracies and I don't like the way they run theirs much.

    1. Again, if you want to pretend there is freedom of and from religion, you have to let all religions participate in governing.

    2. The "blithering idiots" are the electorate, and I'd say their just now finding out how much of a lie the whole "freedom of religion" bit is.

    I swear, some of you guys secretly admire the taliban, don't you?
    1 person likes this.
  11. unclehobart

    unclehobart New Member

    It all comes down to wether you beleive the Constitution is set in stone and to be taken at face value... or wether you believe it to be a flexible doument capable of shifting with the changing times. The way it was, is, and is going sure isn't perfect... but to sit still and do nothing is inviting equal destruction from inflexibility.

    IMHO, the swearing in with a religious tome of any kind is nothing more than a symbolic gesture anyway. Swearing in is also nothing more than symbolism of a smooth transition of power in a democracy. Either you are going to do your job or not, religious undertones nonwithstanding.
  12. catocom

    catocom Well-Known Member

    There really never has been Total freedom of religion, or many other things.
    Law takes precedents over some of it. (Like, say your religion includes bigamy...)

    The thing mainly to me is that these type situations are coming up just now
    when war is afoot.

    It wouldn't bother me if a person just didn't want to participate, but to change
    because the whole tradition because of one person, to me, is wrong.
    Especially when the majority of the terrorist are Muslim. (if not all)

    Too me it's just 'common since', but as I've said, there almost isn't a such
    thing much anymore because of PC.
  13. Gonz

    Gonz molṑn labé Staff Member

    The Constitution is the set of rules granting & limiting the power of the Federal government by binding those rules to the governed. It may not be superceded. It may be altered, as expressly spelled out within its boundries.

    The Bill of Rights & all attached amendments are also limits to the governmental powers.

    Article 1, Section 5 provide that each House may set thier own rules as to how they do business & what their members may be allowed/restricted. Personally, I'm not sure that elected members of the government are allowed the same freedoms as the governed (while in office) since they are part of the machine.

    The Judeo-Christian religion are one of the few that actually openly accept that other religions may be present & practced freely. It's some of its followers that my not be so passive.
  14. spike

    spike New Member

    Wrong, most religions openly accept other religions being present and practiced freely. Although religions like catholicism do believe all non catholics are going to hell.

    He could be sworn in on a bible which would be meaningless to him or on a religious book that meant something. Kudos to him for wanting his swearing in to be meaningful.

    What the hell does terrorism have to do with this? He's not a terrorist so WTF?
  15. catocom

    catocom Well-Known Member

    Another subject which we could have a whole thread on, that I'm sure
    we're probably at odds on....Profiling.
  16. 2minkey

    2minkey bootlicker

    quakers had significant influence - well beyond their small numbers - at several important points in US history. but... they ain't 'all that.'

    the constitution and the declaration of independence are DIRECT outcroppings of humanist ideas.

    "dangerous and fallible," huh? how's that?
  17. spike

    spike New Member

    I'm not sure what you're saying. You want to profile this congressman as a terrorist?
  18. catocom

    catocom Well-Known Member

    I'm just saying this one part of his profile, fits a part of a terrorist profile.

    (see other post about Khrushchev's statement)
  19. spike

    spike New Member

    So what is your point exactly? Since he is not a terrorist, and vast majority of Muslims aren't, it's kind of ridiculous to bring it up.
  20. SouthernN'Proud

    SouthernN'Proud Southern Discomfort

    Most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. Unless you choose to fool yourself, in which case it's all Bush's fault.

    How many Christians are serving in government capacities in the Arab world again? And yet we allow someone who is a professed member of the very group we are at war with, the very group trying to undermine our country, to be a member of its Congress. Fools, the damn lot of them that elected him.

    I have every right to be as intollerent as I like, same as every one else shows their intollerence. I strongly suggest getting over it cuz it ain't changin'. Saves on ulcer meds. But, this being a "free" country, suit yourself. I do.

Share This Page