Islam does not allow for separation of Church and State (in theory or in practice).

Christianity does.

Case closed.

Posted by: Celsius at September 30, 2007 8:30 AM

It's obvious that McCain doesn't know anything about "the Islam."

And I'm still grappling with how we've even reached a point where "Muslim" and "U.S. President" are used in the same sentence.

Posted by: darcy at September 30, 2007 8:43 AM

At least he said it publicly.

Peter King for president, John McCain vice president.

Posted by: winemkr at September 30, 2007 8:49 AM

These words could be the kiss of death for McCain's run for president. "The Islam?" And people say Bush is inarticulate.

I hope he sticks by what he said and doesn't start backpedaling and issuing apologies.

Posted by: cumulusnine at September 30, 2007 8:52 AM

McCain is an innocent. Physically tough, able to withstand years of imprisonment, refusing to collaborate in any with with his North Vietnamese captors, he apparently is not tough enough to sit down and read, and begin to think clearly, about the tenets and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam, which can only begin to be understood after one has thoroughly familiarized oneself with the Qur'an (read with an understanding of naskh, and with the ability to discern that even such seemingly innocent phrases as "fi sabil Allah" -- "in the path of Allah" --- are only superficialy similar to such Christian phrases as "walk in the way of the Lord" because the "way of Allah" is quite different). If McCain were to spend just a few weekends reading "The Dhimmi" and "Islam and Dhimmitude" and "Onward Muslim Soldiers" and "The Truth About Muhammad" and "Why I Am Not a Muslim" and "The Legacy of Jihad" and "Infidel" and Ibn Warraq's essay comparing "Islam and Fascism," if he were to permit himself what may seem to some to be a luxury but is in fact a necessity -- the time to study Islam, and not through the medium of the small army of apologists, both Muslim and non-Muslim (and here the dozens of Western scholars of Islam, their texts preserved and reprinted, will stand him in good stead, so that he need not repair to, need not rely on, need not trust, the eager to please, smiling, outwardly plausible, members of MESA Nostra, beginning with the espositos and the ernsts, and ending with the dabashis and the safis and the massads and tutti quanti).

If he had done it, if he had performed this task, he would never have been such an enthusiast for the continued squandering of men, money, and materiel in Tarbaby Iraq. He would have understood that the only outcome worth having, from the American point of view, is one that weakens the Camp of Islam, in and out of Iraq. And the way to weaken the Camp of Islam is to exploit -- not in this case by doing something, but by ceasing to do something, by ceasing to try to make Iraq into something it never was and never will be -- the pre-existing fissures, sectarian and ethnic, that Iraq offers on a platter. The Sunnis will never acquiesce in the new political (and therefore economic) order in Iraq. The Shi'a will never yield their new power, having suffered from Sunni discrimination, persecution, and mass murder over the entire history of modern Iraq, and, within Islam, over a much longer period, going back to the days of Ali and Hussain.

McCain, who has some of the right instincts, and senses that something is not quite right with Islma, has expressed himself foolishly. He should never have said, even if it is true, and even if we all know what he meant by this, that "this is a Christian nation" - unless he was immediately prepared to explain exactly what he meant by this (and it was neither offensive nor historically inaccurate, but only inoffensive if properly explained). Now he has opened himself up to CAIR's attack, and he will backtrack apologetically, and in so doing, say things that are not true, and are harmful.

What he should and could have said is that those who accept the principles of this country, its legal and political institutions, and are not intent on changing them, can potentially serve as president. He could then have added "I'm concerned that the contents of the Qur'an and Hadith suggest that Muslims have a duty to spread Islam until it dominates, that part of that duty includes the spread of the Holy Law of Islam, that Islam is a collectivist faith that does not recognize the spiritual autonomy of the individual, so that there is no right to apostasy, that the Qur'an contains many passages that are disturbing and that need to be examined further and their exact meaning -- the meaning given to them by Believers -- be clarified for our sake, for the sake of non-Muslims who know, up to this point, so very little. And I include myself, and the other membes of Congress, and of the Executive. We have simply assumed, as has President Bush, that all religions are more or less the same. And that assumption may not withstand close examination of the evidence, textual and historical, of the doctrines, and the practice, of Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at September 30, 2007 8:57 AM

""That kind of attitude goes against the American tradition of religious pluralism and inclusion," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations."

Incredible!!

Since when has religious pluralism and inclusion meant anything in Islam.

If Mr. Hooper believes in religious pluralism and inclusion, he's an apostate.

This won't play in Peoria, but I'll bet it'll go over big with the elites in Washington and the American media.

Posted by: rational at September 30, 2007 9:12 AM

I admire the Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it," he said. "But I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith."

Yes John, a solid grounding in your "faith." Touching, indeed John.

Consider this:

WND reported earlier this week the Last Supper poster promoting the Folsom Street Fair replaces the bread and wine with sex toys and depicts Jesus Christ and his disciples as "half-naked homosexual sadomasochists."

Scheduled for Sunday, the annual sadomasochistic "leather event" features public displays of nudity and sexual acts.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57886

Now John, imagine that the aforementioned event replaced Jesus with mohammad; and the twelve apolstles with immams.

What do you suppose would happen?

Oh go on; take a guess!

Now John, listen very carefully. What do you hear in San Fransisco in the way of protests?

That's right, bearly a whimper! Not even from you!

They're mocking your "faith" John.

If that was mohammad they portrayed, why you would seeth and rail against them as being haters and intolerant of islam.

You really do admire islam over your own so-called "Christianity," don't you John?

John, you make me sick because you are a weak little coward who can't be honest for even a moment.

Posted by: witness at September 30, 2007 9:16 AM

"This nation was indeed founded on principles that are derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Daily News, predictably, is treating McCain's remarks as if he were saying that this is a Christian country in some kind of sectarian or exclusionary sense".-Robert

Why is that the reverse is so understandable? Isn't Saudi Arabia founded on Muslim tradition? Doesn't that mean there is no separation of Church and state? Isn't that a principle derived from Judeo-Christian principles?

Jesus was clear: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God what belongs to God". That is the separation of Church and state. No "good" Muslim can avoid the mandate to impose Sharia law. They consider it a duty to impose that by any means necessary-including deception. However, it is the permissions to deception in Islam which will make it loathsome even to Muslims one day.

It is simple common sense: no one can love anything they do not trust. Muslims are slaves to compulsion. Deception cripples a society's ability to be flexible, to have the kind of trust (Israel, e.g.) that enables the delegation of authority and fosters the ability to survive. Islam totally cripples that kind of trust. Deception is Islam's internal contradiction.

Further, in Islam, there is no universal mandate to practice the Golden Rule. Only Muslims matter. Islam is based on "the Golden Fool".

Posted by: Frank at September 30, 2007 9:40 AM

""That kind of attitude goes against the American tradition of religious pluralism and inclusion," said Ibrahim Hooper.

Hooper is speaking in the language of the enemy...

McCain: I admire the Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it,"

McCain is speaking in the language of the dhimmi.
An uniformed dhimmi as well...

Posted by: duh_swami at September 30, 2007 9:41 AM

April 19, 2000
Web posted at: 6:10 p.m. EDT (2210 GMT)

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) -- Former GOP presidential candidate John McCain called for the removal of the Confederate battle flag from atop the South Carolina Statehouse on Wednesday, acknowledging that his refusal to take such a stance during his primary battle for the Palmetto State was a "sacrifice of principle for personal ambition."

The 'Straight Talk Express' ran off the hiway seven years ago and the driver is still looking for the on ramp.

Posted by: PRCS at September 30, 2007 9:42 AM

Amen witness, that Folsom thing wouldn't work if it was the other religion. I love watching all of our "leaders" avoiding this issue. Maybe it is time to rent a billboard and stir up the bees nest a little bit.

Posted by: americanmadestrat at September 30, 2007 9:43 AM

I read somewhere,sorry no link, that they are expecting the USA to be under sharia by 2020.

Heaven help us! I think I know what McCain means but he has a long way to go.

Treah:
is someone going to send him a copy of Robert's book via your very worthy project?
This man needs help, and fast.There's too much at stake here.

Posted by: Gramfan at September 30, 2007 9:49 AM

I am happy to have a President following any religion that is not Islam.

Posted by: John at September 30, 2007 9:50 AM

Someone could give these Billboards the Tomato Fest treatment.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 30, 2007 9:50 AM

duh_swami-

Fibrahim Hooper is a liar. Even he knows he's a liar. How can anone respect that?

Posted by: Frank at September 30, 2007 9:55 AM

AP/CNN Reports McCain Story Differently

September 30, 2007
McCain: I would vote for Muslim president
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/30/mccain-i-would-vote-for-muslim-president/

McCain said he would prefer a Christian president.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. John McCain said in an interview published Saturday that he would prefer a Christian president over someone of a different faith, calling it "an important part of our qualifications to lead."

In an interview with Beliefnet, a multi-denominational Web site that covers religion and spirituality, the Republican presidential hopeful was asked if a Muslim candidate could be a good president.

"I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles … personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith," McCain said. "But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president."

Later, McCain said, "I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values."

Asked about Republican rivals Mitt Romney's Mormon faith, McCain said, "I think that Governor Romney's religion should not, absolutely not, be a disqualifying factor when people consider his candidacy for president of the United States."

The Arizona senator was also asked about the confusion over which Christian denomination he belongs to. "I was raised Episcopalian, I have attended the North Phoenix Baptist Church for many years and I am a Christian," McCain said. He added that he has considered being baptized in the Baptist church, but he does not want to do it during the presidential race because "it might appear as if I was doing something that I otherwise wouldn't do."

Posted by: jeffreyimm at September 30, 2007 10:04 AM

Here's the problem, as Hugh said. McCain is obviously ignorant about "the Islam," and his statements will do more harm than good because he's probably going to "backpedal and apologize" (as Hugh said) to Hooper. Why? Because he has no ammunition, knowledge about Islam, with which to stand his ground.

I e-mailed him on his Comment form. I told him that to those with knowledge about "the Islam" it's painfully apparent that he is 100% ignorant on the subject. I urged him to look in the Koran, and to read Robert Spencer. I offered a few examples of the evil of Islam, such as the primary "principle" (as McCain said he "admired lots of good principles" in Islam) being the destruction of all other religions until the world is "all for allah" (Koran).

I ended with that if he kowtowed to loser convert Islamist "Ibrahim" Hooper, I wouldn't vote for him if he receives the nomination. Not in a million years. I urged him to look up the Arabic words "taqiyya" and "Dhimmi."

My God! I "got" Islam immediately! What's wrong with these Doofuses???

Posted by: darcy at September 30, 2007 10:07 AM

So, does this mean that B. Hussein Obama is out?

* 2:216 * 4:74 * 9:111 * 8:12 * 4:96 * 56:22 * 38:51 * 55:56 * 55:76 * 56:22 * 8:74 * 9:2 *

McCain is an innocent.

McCain is guilty of reckless endangerment.

Oh, would somebody remind this intellectual coward of another important item he has so studiously avoided?

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
--- Article IV, Section IV of the U.S. Constitution

This specifies that winking at a unopposed invasion sustained over 30 yrs by Meso-American aborigines makes at least three presidents and thousands of federal and state legislators, and mayors, criminals for having abrogated their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at September 30, 2007 10:12 AM

People, because this McCain debacle is soooo depressing, esp. coming from a "leader," - click on this and get a laugh!

http://groups.msn.com:80/ThePeoplesRevolutionaryArmy/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=436

Posted by: darcy at September 30, 2007 10:31 AM

Hey, I think Mohammed really looked like that!

Aren't they supposed to be rioting against the display of that representation of Mo?

Posted by: darcy at September 30, 2007 10:34 AM

When we say that something has an internal contradiction we really mean it defies human nature and human needs. For example, the Soviet Communist system attempted to implement so-called collective farming and the Ukraine, which was once the breadbasket of the world, became a wasteland in terms of food production. The ideology commanded compulsion and finally there was mass murder of the people who were not motivated by the collective-farming abstract principles which defied human nature. A sound system will recognize human nature as it is and build an order that takes the basic selfishness of humans and encourages it to serve a common good.

In like manner, humans need to be in a system that fosters trust. The stock market, any market, even money, is built on trust. Once trust goes people will resort to violence and force unless there is totalitarian compulsion-some slavery of the people to ideology.

Human beings cannot fully develop their talents in any system that mandates deception. Once they are given an alternative to such a system they will run to the alternative (which is why Islam dare not permit equality of religion or freedom of conscience). Islam's internal contradiction is its mandate-permission to deception. One day in the future everyone will see that very clearly.

Posted by: Frank at September 30, 2007 10:35 AM

"Separation of church and state" is not why Christianity is the answer for the U.S.A.

I would like to quote Alan Keyes here.

"Someone who simply reads the text of the Constitution of the United States would be thoroughly surprised to learn that a federal judge claimed the right to act in this manner. The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . ." Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government—including the courts—to act in this area.

Moreover, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution plainly states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means that the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, having been explicitly withheld from the United States, is reserved to the states or to the people."

And the overwhelming majority would rather see Christian influence than Islamic here, period.

Posted by: SoteriA at September 30, 2007 10:44 AM

Excellent rant, tgusa.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at September 30, 2007 10:49 AM

The Islamic religion is for the most part an aggressive political ideology,a theocracy with its own institution of laws (sharia) that seek to diminish, and weaken the independent freedom that should be inherit in the human spirit of all men. Its surahs,and hadiths are inculcators of the teaching of hate, and antisemitism,and of the suppression of women, all lending itself to tyrants, dictators,demogogues,and despots that come in many forms. The religion of peace is an absolute myth that most should have seen clearly by now.

One wonders what Senator MCain has read;if any so as to have some understanding of the Islam that allows for deception (taquiyya) and (Kitman) half truths when in the dar al harb of which many Muslims reflect as an "always" when it comes to the infidel where ever he may be? Does he listen to the propagandists' (CAIR) that have a large office building barely 3 blocks from the Capitol? Is he prepared to see thru their facade of misinformation, and deception?

After 9-11,after 7-7 after Madrid,after Beslan,after Khobar towers ,after the USS Cole, and a host of over 9,000 terrorist attacks by Muslims throughout the world driven by the teachings of the Qu'ran,the Hadiths we still have to many living in denial,and still drinking the cool aid.

We need a candidate for President who clearly has an understanding of this Ideology and I am afraid I do not see one anywhere.

Posted by: Mackie at September 30, 2007 11:10 AM

what a condescending asskl0wn he should drop dead

Really? which ones ? raping children armed robbery murder of none muslims lying to none muslims . slavery genocide.
please mr want to be president troll illuminate us.

Posted by: GrennBeck at September 30, 2007 11:12 AM

I would never vote for a Muslim in any office, on any level in the United States. Period.

Geez. It ain't like my clarity is anything new...I have made it quite clear that we should not even vote for an ex-Muslim for the office of President, though I will admit that I do not hold that an ex-Muslim should be necessarily kept out of other office. This is all just plain common sense folks.

Jan. 30, 2007:

Is Barack Obama Ideologically Muslim?

Oh, and it's also understanding where we come from as a nation and why things have worked up to this point to keep us free, which apparently too many Americans today are incapable of doing, or refuse to acknowledge. Nihilism runs wild....

Posted by: Foehammer at September 30, 2007 11:16 AM

We don't need a President or Politicians who operate from knee jerk reactions instead of knowledgable reactions.

Posted by: Mackie at September 30, 2007 11:26 AM

When it comes to gathering an understanding of the phases of jihad, I have always kept this particular 26 page study in my favorites which makes for a good reference guide on several occasions. FYI---If anyone is interested?

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Bailey/jihad.html

Posted by: Mackie at September 30, 2007 11:37 AM

"He might have expressed himself more clearly, explaining that the views of the dignity of all people and their equality of rights before the law"

A very important point.

Posted by: Big Luke at September 30, 2007 11:52 AM

Christianity and Judaism work wonderfully well with democracy. No real problem for either religion. Islam and democracy are simply incompatibile for numerous reasons, most or all of which are known by so many who post here.

The majority religion in this country is Christianity. Woe to America if Islam should ever replace Christianity in this regard. It would be the end of America as know it and the beginning of the darkest Dark Age for all of mankind.

One last comment. I'd bet what appears to be significant ignorance about Islam on the part of Senator McCain would be duplicated by the vast majority of those in Congress from either side of the aisle.

Posted by: Wellington at September 30, 2007 12:00 PM

Hooper is such a wind bag. A real breath of stale air. Little does he realize that McCain's sentiments are shared by most of the people in this country. He and his buddies over at CAIR ought to be worrying about their own attitudes instead of attitudes of others. They are the troublemakers, the instigators, the whiners and the criers.

To hell with CAIR, an insidious, disingenuous pack of rats.

Posted by: Prickzilla at September 30, 2007 12:03 PM

SoteriA

Remove sharia,remove political Islam,remove Islam towards Medina,remove its hate for non Muslims, remove it antisemitism,remove its disrespect for the New testament of the Bible as being corrupted,remove all aspects of jihadism,remove its suppression of women, remove the tenants that do not allow for change, than you might barely be able to (kinda,sorta,maybe) tolerate, or view Islam as just a religion?? ---How many did I miss?

Posted by: Mackie at September 30, 2007 12:05 PM

At least he said it publicly.

Peter King for president, John McCain vice president.
Posted by: winemkr

Let's not get too excited here. He's just saying that in some vain attempt to "move to the right" since he's seen Tom Tancredo and others gain in popularity based on their *honest* vies on islam.

Even Rudy has a real record vis-a-vis islam.

He turned down the tainted $10m from some sheikh after 9/11 and he had Arafart thrown out on his ass at a political UN function at the Public Library on Fifth and 42nd in new York.

McCain is against Gitmo and against extracting information from terrorists by any means necessary.

You cannot deal with islamics like real people. They're like the terminator. They cannot be talked to nor can they be reasoned with.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 30, 2007 12:05 PM

A moslem President would be the cherry on top for the sharia crowd. The RoP® is so ingrained in moslem brains that a moslem Prez would be very involved in making life a lot more islamic in the US, all for "our own good", mind you.
I cannot believe we are having this discussion, my God...9-11 was just in 2001.
Again I mention the Biblical phrase "powerful delusion".

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 30, 2007 12:10 PM

2 Thessalonians 1 • View Chapter • 2 Thessalonians 3

9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 30, 2007 12:14 PM

Celsius

"Islam does not allow for separation of Church and State (in theory or in practice).

Christianity does.

Case closed."

Second it.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 30, 2007 12:15 PM

I'm not a McCain man, and after reading this I'm REALLY not a McCain man (unless you're talking potato chips).
It's just this sort of stupid comment, argued incoherently, that really hurts the cause. McCain makes those of us who have a negative view of many aspects of Islam seem like the bigots we are unjustly accused of being.
Instead of making a parochial, ad hominem attack against a hypothetical candidate, McCain should have spoken about those aspects of Islam which are incompatible with Western values. Then he might have sounded less yahoo-like.

Posted by: jewdog at September 30, 2007 12:19 PM

Ha ha and once obama is out of the way , i suppose the next thing is
"America was founded mostly by males (you hear of founding fathers but no founding mothers) so I'd prefer a male president ..bye bye hillary"

Celsius
"Christianity does."(allow for separation of church and state)
Any supporting scripture from christianity (as opposed to examples of christians who have seperated church from state)?
Note that i do not dispute that christians mostly have succeeded in seperating church from state except perhaps in the case of Abortions, Stem Cell Research, Gay Marriages, No protection- Abstinence only sex Education ummm..

Posted by: cerebate at September 30, 2007 12:21 PM

The idea alone is an abomination.

A Muhammedan prez? An insult to anyones intelligence. No Islamio fascist should be allowed to hold office, just like no communist was allowed to hold office during the times of the cold war.

This is just insane. People like Obama and Ellison should not even be allowed anywhere near congress or parliament.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 30, 2007 12:29 PM

oh and just in case anyone thinks that i think Obama is a muslim, Im fully aware of
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Posted by: cerebate at September 30, 2007 12:29 PM

McCain later clarified his remarks, saying, "I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and to defend our political values."

And that can never happen.

I suggest everyone go to McCain's web site, go to "Contact us" at the bottom, and send a letter explaining why this can never and should never happen. If McCain understood the truth, he might just be one of the few political candidates who could speak it.

Posted by: Clay Marley at September 30, 2007 12:36 PM

Senator McCain,

I read your comments that a Muslim should not ever be president. This will annoy Muslim groups in the States and they will ask you to clarify.

Let me help you.

First, there is no need to say the US was founded on Christina values. It was founded on Human Values. Bringing in Christianity dilutes the message. There are much better ways to express your point of view.

In Islam, there is no separation of church and state. All law is Allahs’s laws (Sharia Law). There is no Bill of Rights, the rights we have are based on the Koran, and non-Muslims have less rights than Muslims. There is no freedom of speech; all speech must conform to Sharia Law. There is no democracy, as Allah appoints leaders; to think people can decide on leaders is apostasy.

All Muslims are bound by duty to create an Islamic state, by Jihad or otherwise. An Islamic state is diametrically opposite Western values.

If you are to be President you need to have a much better understanding of Islam. But you might be the one candidate who could speak the truth once you know it.

Regards,
-- Dan Weed

Posted by: Clay Marley at September 30, 2007 12:37 PM

Foehammer:

Barack Obama is a member of the left-wing "United Church of Christ". He spoke at the UCC national convention in Hartford, CT and brought his campaign workers with him. I work in Hartford, CT, and followed the local news coverage. Like Jimmah Cartuh, UCC has taken anti-Israel, pro-Hamas positions recently.
--
CTYank

Begin quote from http://ucctruths.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------------
New questions raised about anti-Israel book published by Pilgrim Press
Monday, September 17, 2007
Dexter Van Zile, a former UCCtruths editorial contributor and current analyst for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), is drawing more attention to a book published by the UCC's Pilgrim Press that is highly critical of Israel. According to a CAMERA press release today, the book, Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians by Wheaton College Professor Gary M. Burge, is not only laden with inaccuracies, it directly suggests that Jews who don't convert to Christianity have forfeited their land:

More ominously, under Rev. Dr. Burge’s scriptural analysis, Jews who reject Christ have forfeited their land and risk their lives by attempting to live in it. For example, on page 176, Rev. Dr. Burge interprets John 15:6 as follows: “The people of Israel cannot claim to be planted by vines in the land; they cannot be rooted in the vineyard unless first they are grafted into Jesus. Branches that attempt living in the land, the vineyard, which refuse to be attached to Jesus will be cast out and burned.”
Van Zile doesn't stop there:

“Rev. Dr. Burge equates Israel with apartheid South Africa when in fact there is no rational comparison. Arabs in Israel vote, form political parties, sit in the Supreme Court, serve in the Knesset, serve in the diplomatic corps, own companies, earn advanced degrees and enjoy more freedoms and a higher standard of living than Arabs living in neighboring Arab states,” Van Zile says. “Like any heterogeneous society, there are problems, and in Israel they are compounded by competing national allegiances among the country’s Arab population. Arab members of the Knesset have expressed vocal support for groups that perpetrate attacks against Israeli civilians. The book makes no mention of this.”
---------------------------------------------
End quote

Posted by: CTYankee at September 30, 2007 1:03 PM

"...goes against the American tradition of religious pluralism..." quoth the Hooper.

But Islam is utterly against "pluralism" in religion (in EVERY sense), so this is sheer b.s. hypocrisy.

As an anti-Constitutional creed, Islam deserves to thrive... in Mecca. And nowhere else.

Until Mecca is "pluralistic" and "inclusive".

McCain is too weak.

He doesn't understand anything about Islam.

He should learn first, then speak.

Otherwise we get this jabbering and backpedalling where we need a direct and strong and informed riposte to Muslim intolerance and their religious calls to terrorism enshrined in the text of the Koran.

Back to the books, John.

Posted by: profitsbeard at September 30, 2007 1:05 PM

Mackie I agree with you 100%.

But my point is the "separation of church and state" should be a invisible wall keeping Government out of running churches in the USA, not keeping the influence of biblical convictions out of decision making in Government. Jefferson meant by saying separation of church and state in that letter to a Baptist minister, was assuring protection from the Congressionalist sect. He even said the wall is a one way invisible one...because the original intent was to keep from happening in the US what happened in England, where Government ran the church. Alan Keyes' point was its up to the states and the people to decide, not the Federal Government.

I don't even see where Islam even applies here. Its not what this nation was founded on and its ideology contradicts our basis for Government. Its a outside threat and should be treated as a threat to the existence of this Republic...because sharia seeks to replace it. Islam is not just a religion being introduced here, it is a invasion of a fascist entity and should be treated as such.

Posted by: SoteriA at September 30, 2007 1:13 PM

Its deist priciples McCain you numbnut. But they are in fact about as far away from Islamic principles as humanly possible that is for sure.

Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at September 30, 2007 1:14 PM

"First, there is no need to say the US was founded on Christian values. It was founded on Human Values. Bringing in Christianity dilutes the message. There are much better ways to express your point of view."

Posted by: Clay Marley September 30, 2007 12:37 PM

Sounds like you have a humanist agenda. Funny they have same goals as Islam concerning this nation. Destroy its original foundation and replace it with a new vision.

Posted by: SoteriA at September 30, 2007 1:39 PM

He forgot to add ... and we shouldn't use the torture on the Islam.

McCain is irrelevant.

Posted by: LoneRanger at September 30, 2007 1:42 PM

'humanity' for Muhammedans begins and ends with the ummah.

Infidels don't come into the equation, they are expendible.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 30, 2007 1:56 PM

Obama may be a left-leaning "christian". I will never trust him, never. He has a soft spot in his heart for islam. His Father was moslem, his step-father was moslem.
I have to say that I don't trust any politicians, but Obama gets a healthy dose of "oh s&*t" factor.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 30, 2007 2:01 PM

cerebate, there is a theological justification for separating Church and State. When Jesus said "pay unto Caesar what is due to Caesar, pay unto God what is due to God". That may not be the exact quote, but it is the gist of it.

In Europe, the Reformation, Renaissance, Age of Enlightenment all helped break some of the power and dogma of the excessive bits of Christianity.

All that seemed to pass islam by.

Posted by: Celsius at September 30, 2007 2:02 PM

SoteriA:

I also agree with you and no form of Islamic Jurisprudence(sharia)whether it be domestic (family law) should not be allowed to make any in roads into federal,state,or any city municipalities as has been attempted in Canada over the last few years. Canada's risk of allowing that foot in the door of sharia was extremely dangerous to their established legal foundations

Posted by: Mackie at September 30, 2007 2:06 PM

"...goes against the American tradition of religious pluralism..." quoth the Hooper.

It has been made public how the infiltraitors are using our own system of government against us, they laugh about it.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 30, 2007 2:07 PM

See:
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 30, 2007 2:09 PM

Not only were the “Founding Fathers” reading the “Bible”

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

Christopher Columbus read it also;

. The "Libro de las profecias"

Book of Prophecies by Christopher Columbus

The "Libro de las profecias" was drafted in 1501 and remains the
only work written by Christopher Columbus which has not been
thoroughly studied.

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/columbus/

From the very start “America” has been built on “Jesus Christ” (not allah) .

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at September 30, 2007 2:13 PM

"I admire the Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it . . . "
-McCain

"good principles?" Such as what? Any principles that haven't been purloined from Judaism and Christianity? The principles in Islam that are "original," are violent and evil.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at September 30, 2007 2:18 PM

repatriate them.
Posted by: tgusa

That's kinder treatment than what they intend for us.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 30, 2007 2:49 PM

"This nation was indeed founded on principles that are derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I completely agree with the above statement. However, most Christian activists do not use the word tradition. They claim to a receptive audience that it is derived directly from the Bible, that is inspired by Jesus. They claim that we are a Christian Nation. When Jesus said "Render unto Caesar . . ." he gave us the foundation for the separation of religion and government. Most evangalists reject this.

Any politician who says that there are admirable ideas in Islam is pandering. To me pandering means lying to get votes.

John McCain went through Hell in service of his country; however, it does not give him a free pass. Just like Duke Cummingham, ones heroism goes only so far.

Posted by: Pelayo at September 30, 2007 2:59 PM

Actually the United States was NOT founded on "Judeo Christian principles," which are nowhere even mentioned in the Constitution.

This is an important point, because otherwise we are forced to define ourselves as partcipants in a religious war in which we take the side of one religion against another.

The Founding Fathers often spoke of the significance of our secular constitution.

Posted by: Fred the Red at September 30, 2007 3:07 PM

WND reported earlier this week the Last Supper poster promoting the Folsom Street Fair replaces the bread and wine with sex toys and depicts Jesus Christ and his disciples as "half-naked homosexual sadomasochists."

Scheduled for Sunday, the annual sadomasochistic "leather event" features public displays of nudity and sexual acts.

Posted by Witness

I saw that on TV and it makes me sick. Whoever did that will burn in hell.

Posted by: Bonniea at September 30, 2007 3:13 PM

Good Lord "separation of church and state" is not even in the constitution, so why are people so adamant about trumpeting that phrase over and over...even when it was spoken in a private letter concerning protecting one religious sect from another seeking Government invention to ban them??? Jefferson's points had nothing to do with secularism when he said that. It seems to me people are using it to try to say there such be no religious principles in decision making...and Government should be ruled by secular ideals by default. Like saying any religious belief is inherently evil in Government and only serves to abuse power?

I don't want to see churches running Government or Government running churches.

I want to see Judeo-Christian principles leading this nation...guiding & tempering our decisions.

The problem with Islam is it's the doctrine that produces the evil. "Christians are dangerous when they don't obey the bible and Muslims are dangerous when they obey the Quran" is why Judeo-Christian influence should be threaded through out our Government and Islam shouldn't.
For Sharia to be the basis means destroying and reconstructing this Republic.

HELL NO...WE WILL NOT SUBMIT!!!

Posted by: SoteriA at September 30, 2007 3:28 PM

Celcius
I do not see the phrase advocating separation of church and state.
It explicitly does not state what is to be done if the state and church are in conflict.

Posted by: cerebate at September 30, 2007 3:36 PM

Actually the United States was NOT founded on "Judeo Christian principles," which are nowhere even mentioned in the Constitution.

This is an important point, because otherwise we are forced to define ourselves as partcipants in a religious war in which we take the side of one religion against another.

The Founding Fathers often spoke of the significance of our secular constitution.

Posted by: Fred the Red at September 30, 2007 3:07 PM

Ever read the Federalist Papers?

You can get a used copy at a second hand book store for $.50 -- a good investment.

Read it for yourself and they will tell you that the nation they founded was based on Judeo-Christian principals.

I pity your plight, being dumbed-down by a leftest educational system in America, but there is hope -- if only you can read.

I saw that on TV and it makes me sick. Whoever did that will burn in hell.

Posted by: Bonniea at September 30, 2007 3:13 PM

I understand your feelings, but I can not speak to their eternal state. However, here is the important point, despite your feelings I sense that you will not try to behead someone over the matter as an islamic would had this filth involved mohammad.

You see, therein is the difference. At least you rightly speak out against the matter, unlike John who wouldn't touch the issue with a ten-foot pole.

I admire you Bonniea -- at least I can believe you when you state your position on this or that; can't say the same for John unfortunately.

Posted by: witness at September 30, 2007 3:50 PM

"First, there is no need to say the US was founded on Christian values. It was founded on Human Values. Bringing in Christianity dilutes the message. There are much better ways to express your point of view."

Posted by: Clay Marley September 30, 2007 12:37 PM

This is delusional revisionism. It is right up there with Tinker-Bell and the tooth-fairy in its fantasy and childish denial of historical reality.

Respectfully, grow up.

Posted by: witness at September 30, 2007 3:56 PM

I am for the separation along with SoteriA, I don’t want guvment telling me what to do regarding religion, and vise versa.

There very question the Baptists posed to Thomas Jefferson in a letter of concern that the government would try to interfer with their religon.

Jefferson's letter of reply was to allay their fears by assuring them that a wall of separation existed between the government and the church such that the government could not -- would not -- curtail any of their religious activities.

Since then, this notion was been prostituted, repackaged, and pimped as the complete reversal culminating in the freedom from religion and all Judeo-Christian principles, that we see being foisted upon us today.

Posted by: witness at September 30, 2007 4:05 PM

I'm an Australian so this is not my problem per se - my problem is with my own politicians, as an election fast approaches.

But: sounds as though McCain might be educable, if a lot of you here write him short, sharp letters with concrete examples of, for instance, the 'culture of deception', Muslim non-reciprocity, and the suppression of freedom of speech and freedom of religion that Islam produces whenever and wherever it prevails. Make sure he hears Ali Sina's warning - that Islam DOES NOT teach the 'Golden Rule'.

Perhaps, too, give him some juicy paragraphs from John Quincy Adams' analysis of Islam.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 30, 2007 4:15 PM

McCain is trying to pander to the "religious right" and sees this as a way to reach some conservative voters.

"That kind of attitude goes against the American tradition of religious pluralism and inclusion," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

There's only one answer for Mr. Hooper:

so does Islam!

Posted by: PMK at September 30, 2007 4:53 PM

"First, there is no need to say the US was founded on Christian values. It was founded on Human Values. Bringing in Christianity dilutes the message. There are much better ways to express your point of view."

Posted by: Clay Marley September 30, 2007 12:37 PM

This is delusional revisionism. It is right up there with Tinker-Bell and the tooth-fairy in its fantasy and childish denial of historical reality.

Respectfully, grow up.

Don't be so judgmental. The point is that to best make the argument that Muslims shouldn't be in any office is not to make a religious argument - that just riles up the Godless Left who scream about separation and demonize Christians without realizing the importance of understanding Islamic political theology. The argument can be easily made on secular fundamental human values. Watch and see if the Left doesn't latch on to his statement on Christian values instead of the real point.

Posted by: Clay Marley at September 30, 2007 5:01 PM

Since marriage is a Judeo/Christian institution that predates the Constitution by multiple centuries the guvment has no business being involved if you truly believe in the invisible/hypothetical wall of separation of church and state.
by tgusa

Marriage is also a civil institution, irrespective of the gay marriage issue. My religion may bar me from marrying someone of another faith but the government does not deny me a license to marry based on church law.

The secular institution of marriage allows for the rights of both partners and of the children of such unions to be protected according to state law. All members of all (or no) religions must obey the same laws, regardless of their particular doctrine.

Posted by: PMK at September 30, 2007 5:29 PM

McCain and I can agree on one thing -- and that's that we don't want to see a Muslim in the Oval Office; not necessarily because this nation has a Judeo/Christian foundation, although McCain does make a good point, but more because of 9/11 and who was behind it: radical MUSLIMS.

In my opinion, putting a Muslim president in the White House, regardless of where they fall on being "moderate", would show enormous disrespect to those who died on 9/11; it would also show a lack of respect to those who fought to save the lives that were lost on 9/11; and it would trample on the tears and emotions of those whose hearts were broken and changed forever by 9/11.

And what message would we be sending the world at large? That 9/11 wasn't THAT big of a deal, after all, we elected a Muslim president. It would be demonstrating a lack of respect to them as well.

"NO WAY" TO A MUSLIM PRESIDENT -- NOT NOW -- NOT EVER!

Posted by: champ at September 30, 2007 5:59 PM

Hi Gramfan!
We have one volunteer from Arizona, and it looks like he will send the book to McCain (and to the other Arizona senator too, if we don't get a second volunteer from Arizona).

Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if McCain is aware of Spencer's book, despite possible appearances to the contrary.

Posted by: traeh at September 30, 2007 6:08 PM

The case against abortion can be made in absence of any religious basis or rule. If you have ever put you ear on your wife's stomach and heard the heart beat of a developing child, you will understand my opinion.

Marraige is a human institution that long predates Judaism. It certainly predates Christianity. It is common throughout human history. Explorers discovered stone age people in New Guinea in the 1930s, and these people had a tradition of marraige.

If one can read the Ten Commandments in a non-religious context, it might be realized that ten rules for the creation of an orderly society were handed down, nothing more and nothing less. By claiming that these rules came from a mysterious, all powerful God gave them legitimacy. If Moses had written ten rules based on consensus, some of the rules might not have been adopted - I'm thinking that the rules about adultery and coveting might not have gotten a majority vote.

Additionally, I believe that humans do not need a religious foundation to understand what is right and wrong.

Posted by: Pelayo at September 30, 2007 6:23 PM

Before I get jumped on. I am in no way endorsing anything to do with Islam. Islam is an abomination.

Posted by: Pelayo at September 30, 2007 6:26 PM

"The point is that to best make the argument that Muslims shouldn't be in any office is not to make a religious argument - that just riles up the Godless Left who scream about separation and demonize Christians without realizing the importance of understanding Islamic political theology. The argument can be easily made on secular fundamental human values. Watch and see if the Left doesn't latch on to his statement on Christian values instead of the real point."
-- from a posting above

This is not much different, is it, from what was posted much earlier:

"McCain, who has some of the right instincts, and senses that something is not quite right with Islma, has expressed himself foolishly. He should never have said, even if it is true, and even if we all know what he meant by this, that "this is a Christian nation" - unless he was immediately prepared to explain exactly what he meant by this (and it was neither offensive nor historically inaccurate, but only inoffensive if properly explained). Now he has opened himself up to CAIR's attack, and he will backtrack apologetically, and in so doing, say things that are not true, and are harmful."

Though one might take issue with a word ("judgmental") or a phrase and what that phrase may imply ("Godless Left"), that poster -- "Clay Marley" -- made, or re-made -- a perfectly sensible point.

Posted by: Hugh at September 30, 2007 6:35 PM

cerebate:

Biblical reading is not for the obtuse.

Posted by: atheling at September 30, 2007 7:07 PM

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283

"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416

"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291

"In our early struggles for liberty, religious freedom could not fail to become a primary object." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808. ME 16:317

"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382

Posted by: atheling at September 30, 2007 7:17 PM

"If a sect arises whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play and reasons and laughs it out of doors without suffering the State to be troubled with it." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:224

"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548

"It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547

Posted by: atheling at September 30, 2007 7:19 PM

"I admire the Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it," he said. "But I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith."

Which principles specifically is the Senator speaking about? Hacking off heads, hands, legs? Depriving women and non-Muslims of their civil rights? The perversion of marrying nine-year olds off to old men. The practice of genital mutilation (of course, this is another way Islam honors women)? Suicide bombers? Teaching their children to hate all Jews and non-Muslims?

I think the Senator is being too kind and, perhaps, not wishing to offend Muslims. But, if Muslims will not speak out about the hideous injustices of their religion, wholly abdicating their duty as agents for change, then, the rest of the civilized world has a duty to call attention to what this religion imposes upon its adherents (and those who reject its laws and supremacy).

Islam continues to be a religion of persecution. Ahmadinejad would gladly purge his country of those whom he considers a blight upon moral purity in the glorious Islamic Republic of Iran. Ahmadinejad is for depriving human beings their civil rights and their right to life just because their personal choices offend him. This evil little megalomaniac really believes he has the right to persecute those who choose individual liberty and freedom from Islam to death. As a proponent of Christianity, I know that Christ did not legislate morality, he advocated tolerance and acceptance of all peoples; no person was outside his ministry and no person was considered unclean or unworthy of his message. Christians do not need to persecute homosexuals; we only need to try to emulate Christ's example and Christ's teaching in our own lives.

I know Senator McCain is mistaken in his remarks about the Religion of Persecution. Senator McCain's preference for an adherent of Christian tolerance, human rights and individual dignity actually nullifies any statement he may have made intentionally or unintentionally endorsing the Religion of Persecution.

Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at September 30, 2007 7:27 PM

A discussion of first principles on this page. Very good. The evidence should come from our founding documents, as well as world history.

I have come very far in my thinking. I began by thinking that the principles of the American founding were solely rational (so far so good - I still think so), and therefore they could be taken out of their local social context and applied without change to any other society in the world. To my sorrow, I have learned better.

But it's not just a result of observing the depravity of totalitarian Muslim societies. The other crucial ingredient in changing my thinking was a true realization of the communist agenda which has remained unchanged since Plato's Republic. That agenda requires a radical uprooting of society - a tearing of the social fabric that gives it structure in order to impose its totalitarian utopian vision. The Cultural Revolution in China was the most successful example of this - democide, destruction of the family, destruction of traditional religion.

The Cultural Revolution is admired by faculty at my former college. Recently, they engaged in an online discussion mocking America's continued use of the British system of measurement rather than the metric system (itself the product of the totalitarian, utopian French Revolution). The fact that common people understand the size of feet and inches, quarts and pints, pounds and ounces adds to the urgency of eliminating these familiar touchstones of daily life.

(Funny story OT - once when driving in Canada, I heard a report on the radio about the search for a bank robber. I expected them to describe the suspect in centimeters and kilograms, but instead they described him in feet and inches and pounds. They intuitively understood how common people thought in an emergency.)

I've wondered about what I'd do as president. I posted a program at Atlas Shrugs with the indulgence of Pamela Geller:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/09/democrat-08-com.html

See the comments section. I think you guys will like it.

However, the President of the United States is not merely the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief. He is also Head of State. As an observant Jew, I cannot adequately fulfill that role, despite sharing the same social values as most conservative Christians.

America does not have a Christian government, hence it is not a Christian nation. However, it is a Christian society in which minorities may dwell peacefully.

If you want to see what happens to a formerly Christian society when it rejects its Christian heritage, look at the Soviet Union (20 million plus dead); Nazi Germany (similarly); and, God forbid, contemporary Europe? I do not want America to go down that path.

So here is one religious Jew who is all for religious pluralism and learning from many teachers (including Judaism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism and Christianity), all while recognizing the fundamental organizing principles of this society come from one religion - Christianity.

Posted by: Surak at September 30, 2007 7:39 PM

Senator McCain entered a sound bite war with no Ammunition. The MSM wil never give anyone the time to make clear complicated subjects.

The Constitution, when you get to the heart of the matter. Protects all the people from the Excesses of others Religous beliefs. In effect, it has little choise but to allow a certin level of "sin". In so far as the will of the People will allow. There is no compulson to prevent sin by Goverment.

Instead, we have a criminal code, where some sins are punisable by law. Some Laws are intended to prevent some Religous practices. Like many of the Old Testiment Punishments for breaking the 10 commandments. As we struggle along trying to figure out what level of sin we can put up with. Along comes Islam. a Zero tolerance Theology Not to mention all the other Civil Liberties they outrightly reject.

This Shiria law business needs to be sound bited down to size that the average joe understands.
Sound bite the differences between the Constitution and Shiria Law. Sound bite the reason why various intrest groups need to be conserned.

Sound bite this subject to death. Force the MSM to address this issue directly with its practisoners. Over and over again being forced to defend the indefensible when up against the Life the Constitution has provided.

Siria law itself is incompatible with a Liberal Democracy. That in itself is worth confronting those who wish to subject us to it.

But but but but.

Well, take Women for example, it restricts the free movement of Women, Severly restricts How Women Can dress, who the can Socialise with, Often restricted in their Education. How many examples would you wish for me to elaborate on?

But but but but

I am only expressing to the viewer aspects of Shiria law as it pretains to Women. It is not what I believe. It is what they Believe.

But but but but

Well, what is-is, what more can I say on the matter. Read the Material yourself and see what you conclude.

Good sound bites will lead the dialoge where it needs to go.

It is a sound bite war with the Press and the Anti-Jihad forces are doing as good a job as the war in Iraq. All for the lack of a few dozen properly formed sentances.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 30, 2007 8:32 PM

Senator McCain entered a sound bite war with no Ammunition. The MSM wil never give anyone the time to make clear complicated subjects.

The Constitution, when you get to the heart of the matter. Protects all the people from the Excesses of others Religous beliefs. In effect, it has little choise but to allow a certin level of "sin". In so far as the will of the People will allow. There is no compulson to prevent sin by Goverment.

Instead, we have a criminal code, where some sins are punisable by law. Some Laws are intended to prevent some Religous practices. Like many of the Old Testiment Punishments for breaking the 10 commandments. As we struggle along trying to figure out what level of sin we can put up with. Along comes Islam. a Zero tolerance Theology Not to mention all the other Civil Liberties they outrightly reject.

This Shiria law business needs to be sound bited down to size that the average joe understands.
Sound bite the differences between the Constitution and Shiria Law. Sound bite the reason why various intrest groups need to be conserned.

Sound bite this subject to death. Force the MSM to address this issue directly with its practisoners. Over and over again being forced to defend the indefensible when up against the Life the Constitution has provided.

Siria law itself is incompatible with a Liberal Democracy. That in itself is worth confronting those who wish to subject us to it.

But but but but.

Well, take Women for example, it restricts the free movement of Women, Severly restricts How Women Can dress, who the can Socialise with, Often restricted in their Education. How many examples would you wish for me to elaborate on?

But but but but

I am only expressing to the viewer aspects of Shiria law as it pretains to Women. It is not what I believe. It is what they Believe.

But but but but

Well, what is-is, what more can I say on the matter. Read the Material yourself and see what you conclude.

Good sound bites will lead the dialoge where it needs to go.

It is a sound bite war with the Press and the Anti-Jihad forces are doing as good a job as the war in Iraq. All for the lack of a few dozen properly formed sentences.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 30, 2007 8:32 PM

Senator McCain entered a sound bite war with no Ammunition. The MSM wil never give anyone the time to make clear complicated subjects.

The Constitution, when you get to the heart of the matter. Protects all the people from the Excesses of others Religous beliefs. In effect, it has little choise but to allow a certin level of "sin". In so far as the will of the People will allow. There is no compulson to prevent sin by Goverment.

Instead, we have a criminal code, where some sins are punisable by law. Some Laws are intended to prevent some Religous practices. Like many of the Old Testiment Punishments for breaking the 10 commandments. As we struggle along trying to figure out what level of sin we can put up with. Along comes Islam. a Zero tolerance Theology Not to mention all the other Civil Liberties they outrightly reject.

This Shiria law business needs to be sound bited down to size that the average joe understands.
Sound bite the differences between the Constitution and Shiria Law. Sound bite the reason why various intrest groups need to be conserned.

Sound bite this subject to death. Force the MSM to address this issue directly with its practisoners. Over and over again being forced to defend the indefensible when up against the Life the Constitution has provided.

Siria law itself is incompatible with a Liberal Democracy. That in itself is worth confronting those who wish to subject us to it.

But but but but.

Well, take Women for example, it restricts the free movement of Women, Severly restricts How Women Can dress, who the can Socialise with, Often restricted in their Education. How many examples would you wish for me to elaborate on?

But but but but

I am only expressing to the viewer aspects of Shiria law as it pretains to Women. It is not what I believe. It is what they Believe.

But but but but

Well, what is-is, what more can I say on the matter. Read the Material yourself and see what you conclude.

Good sound bites will lead the dialoge where it needs to go.

It is a sound bite war with the Press and the Anti-Jihad forces are doing as good a job as the war in Iraq. All for the lack of a few dozen properly formed sentences.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 30, 2007 8:32 PM

Sorry about the Triple post.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 30, 2007 8:35 PM

I agree with Allahfanculo above. With McCain's stands on Gitmo, use of torture on terror captives, support of the surge, et al, I don't see why anyone should be rooting for him. In fact, his stance on the Gitmo detainees demonstrates that just as Barbara Lee is the Taliban/al Qaeda member of the House, McClain is the al Qaeda member of the senate. A traitor, no less.

Everyone is better - Romney (despite some wishful thinking about modernizing Islam), Rudy (despite some misguided support for Fatah over Hamas), Thompson (despite appointment of Spence Abraham to his campaign manager), while Tancredo is best, but unlikely. Don't let McCain steal your support with his sham campaigns.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 1, 2007 12:43 AM

McCain's a weird guy. I truly wish he would exit the public stage.

Posted by: Bingo at October 1, 2007 4:01 AM

"McCain's a weird guy. I truly wish he would exit the public stage."

Bingo!

:)

Posted by: champ at October 1, 2007 1:27 PM

Regarding the claim that the U.S. is founded on Judeo-Christian principles, here is a well-written contrary view (with which I agree entirely):

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3485

Fundamentally, the principal of individual rights and the ideas that lead to it cannot be reached if one starts from religious philosophy.

MP

Posted by: IdeaLover at October 1, 2007 5:17 PM

Regarding the claim that the U.S. is founded on Judeo-Christian principles, here is a well-written contrary view (with which I agree entirely):

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3485

Fundamentally, the principal of individual rights and the ideas that lead to it cannot be reached if one starts from religious philosophy.

MP

Posted by: IdeaLover at October 1, 2007 5:18 PM

Wrong.

The author of this article doesn't even bother to give any footnotes or sources.

Individual rights came from Judeo Christian principles:

The Ten Commandments is the beginning.

The Incarnation of Christ is the ending.

Posted by: atheling at October 1, 2007 9:58 PM

For once this guy has said something worth listening to.

Posted by: pythagoras at October 2, 2007 4:44 PM

To witness:
Clay Marley has a good point. Take a look at some of the reviews of and comments about Robert Spencer's latest book; "Religion of Peace?" Even though Robert's arguments are stated clearly and rationally, and do not rely on spiritual or supernatural appeal, they send some "progressives" into a frothing tizzy of (probably feigned) fear. Hard core progressive-leftists can't stand for scripture to be quoted, even as an academic exercise to expose the philosophical differences between Christianity and Islam.

It is ironic that so many in a group which prides itself on clear thinking intellectualism are unable to read two books and understand the philosophical difference between them, given all the real world examples of those differences we see every day. I term people so afflicted as "religious atheists"; because they reject using the very reason they would wear as a badge of honor.

I know some religious atheists, leftists, progressives, or whatever you want to call them, can be convinced by rational argument… especially when the evidence around us is so overwhelming. An even greater percentage of people who consider themselves liberal can be convinced, once educated, that Islam is a significant threat to our liberty, and that Christianity is qualitatively different than Islam. They certainly need to be convinced; convinced that swearing in a public official on the religious equivalent of "Mein Kampf" is nothing to celebrate. They need to be convinced that swearing someone in on a book Jefferson used to study his Barbary Coast War enemies is just plain dumb. And, that voting someone into office who truly believes in that book is suicidal.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at October 2, 2007 5:51 PM