[LANMaster]

Exceptional rebuttal here, iltos.
Thank you for taking the time.

Conservatives need to be fighting fascism, not endorsing it.

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by iltos

where to start.....how about here?
i agree with this

as you must also, brett, because you concede

bringing into question the entire issue of "the ten points", something you seem genuinely interested in addressing in this thread.

i think you're right....something useful can come out....it simply depends, imo, on whether or not one's mind contains an idol cast from one belief system or another.......and i maintain you (not the personal one....the generic one) got your q'uaran literalists on one side of the scale, and your bible literalists on the other side...and the balance they seek on the scales of justice has got little to do with the picture you paint
but let's leave the "ten points" for a bit and take a look at that picture....your response to >f's concerns about the government you'd like to see


this is an honorable pov, imo...i don't agree with all of it, but i respect it as a personal view of "what would be best" for everybody....
it is steeped in a great deal of trust in our fellow man and the ideals of both indivdual freedom and responsibility.........as such, there is the unspoken belief, i feel, that we are all in this together and must reserve some place in our hearts and minds for the idea of "pulling each other through"

otherwise, it is simply "every man for his self", and leaves no room whatsoever for what i see as the common ground buried somewhere in ANY religious belief....something other than "self"

so it's interesting to me that all mention of "religious freedom" based on "equal for all" has been purged from your description....and that religious freedom is also the one -most significant- thing that separates that description from the precepts laid down in the constitution.

so my mind circles back to ponder this phrase

you use the failings of this ideal, brett, as a descriptor for the roots of racism....and i think you nailed it

what remains, of course, is that it is the exact same failings of that ideal wrt to religious beliefs which you have chosen to ignore in your posts

instead, you have latched onto the "ten points" as a work around for the concept of religious freedom, and created this -frankly- rather nutzo roadmap for arriving at a destination where practicing muslims are not welcome to paint your picture with the rest of us.

i borrowed the word, but did not use it lightly....muslims are -according to the "ten points"- infidels.

i find it fascinating that a site devoted to the supremacy of christanity would serve as the unspoken forward to your honest and eloquent statement, one which is apparently based on the premise of an "equality" which ignores religion altogether.

so...in the interests of trying to discover whether "something useful can come out", i'll take a look at those ten points
"Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and loyal citizen?"
i am looking at the word "devout" in this sense...

1. "Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia, turned monothistic."

most arguements lead with their strongest point....not this one....this answer is based on the idea that the christain "god" is actually a triad (father, son, holy ghost -i think ), and the logical extension, of course, it that if you don't believe in the triad, you'll make a lousy patriot and/or loyal citizen....forget the Department of True Religion for a sec.....hindus have too many gods...buddist don't even have one.....so point #1 eliminates EVERY religion that doesn't worship a triad......how many religions does that leave?

2. "Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran."

this is pretty much the same arguement...simply pointing out the devout muslims are different than devout christains.....but then, so are buddhist or sufis or hindus or you name it.....at this point, i'll just go ahead and re-introduce the Department of True Religion.

3. "Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca to which he turns in prayer five times a day."

i can't refute this, except to say that while it definitely leaves a devout muslim with an attachment to the mid-east, various christain sects also have foreign attachments.....the vatican springs to mind immediately.....
i guess catholics are out, too, then

4. "Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam demands that he make no friends of Christians and Jews (Q. 5:51)"

that's exactly 5:51 says....in nearly all english translations....so that's one place to stop and say "SEE!!"
but what do muslims say?
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Islam-947...im-friends.htm....you tell me, brett

5. "Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah, who teaches annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan."

rather than refute this, i'll just ask that you defend it, keeping in mind that not all catholic priests molest kids (not that it matters much.....we've already demonstrated that catholics cannot be patriots or good citizens.)

6. "Domestically, no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Q. 4:34)."

again, you decide, based on what muslims say about their own beliefs
http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/bogaert/bogaert4.htm

7. "Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam—intolerance (Q. 2:256)."

this statement is the height of irony, imo, coming as it does from a source that is apparently willing to eliminate most religions as instruments of patriotism and good citizenship (see #1 and #2)
but in finding a source to refute it, i came across The Authorized English Translation of the Qu'ran", and it says this

8. "Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is established on Biblical principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt."

welpers.....the key to this one would be: "is a muslim taught that the bible is corrupt?"
you tell me http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/jrwhy.html

9. "Philosophically, no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is dictatorial or autocratic except Turkey."

what is this saying?....turkey is a fluke?....or does the exception prove a fallacy in the logic? i'd say the latter: the logic assumes that the answer lies in religion....i'd argue that the answer lies in politics: for that reason, i'm leavin this to someone with a much firmer grasp of history that i have.

10. "Spiritually, no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian’s God is a triune God, while the Muslim’s is one entity called "Allah," who is never a heavenly Father, nor is he ever called "Love" in the 99 excellent names."

this one is just thrown in here to emphasize the wonder of christainity (just in case you weren't already convinced )....it's just #1 with toast and orange juice and has been addressed.

The ten points are what they are..they were not assembled by me but used for the sake of simplicity form a web page..There may be 100 points if one were to research the matter....A few of the point of the 10 are good, a couple make no differance IMO.
People have crapped on their country for years by selling govt secrets etc.
A true follower of Islam as said will not mingle with jews or christians.
We already know they have cloud full of virgins waiting for them when they die after dieing in honor by killing christians.....Lets face it Iltos it happens.
And as you say.....with that said can we truly trust know admitted followers of Islam in positions of national security...No we cant due to the fact that acting out on the religion can put us all in great peril.

[LANMaster]

Brett. Poor form.

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Just for the sake of interest, how many times do you reckon you can get Alaska (your biggest state) into the Saudi desert? Or into Iran?
D'ya reckon you could fit Texas into Afghanistan? (you can't but only by a small margin, they're almost equal).
What states would fit into Iraq? To give you a clue, Iraq is more than half the size of Texas.

My point is that another country is to be compared in size to many of our states here I can easily drive through 4 states in a day and could drive through 4 countries over there on the other side of the ocean....The point being that the terrorist groups are in several countries which would be no differant than them being in kansas Iowa and arizona one day to only also be moved to Ohio texas and nebraska the next day

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by TooBad

Buffoon, Iltos,

I know you are both smart and usually quite reasonable, but how can the incident in Ft. Hood TX yesterday be squared with your complete defense of Muslims? The perpetrator obviously took his oath to Allah more seriously than his oath to the Constitution and the Army. How many of our servicemen have to die at the hands of a fellow soldier because he was Muslim and followed his oath to Allah and not to his fellow soldiers and country? I don't know the correct answer, but it seems that there is a war between religions and Christians and Jews did not declare it.

I agree that not all Muslims seem to be radical, but how do you tell the difference when many of those that commit atrocities seem to be moderate right up until they act. I don't see any easy answers, but if I were the military, I would have all Muslims renounce there faith to ensure that they take their oath to the country and Constitution as sacrosanct. Sounds harsh and against freedom of religion, but what can be done to prevent these tragedies? I really would like to know what alternatives there are.

I was not aware of a new incident that happened...I know there was another incident in the past..you bring a very good point to showing that the stronger the belief the worse it is for the surrounding people

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

How can you honor religious beliefs and in THE SAME SENTENCE say they are "to not be in harmony with Christians"

Perhaps I simply do not understand your poor English here. What is it you are implying?

Are only Christians a good choice for National Security positions?

Dude, you've hit bottom in this hole. But you are still digging.

Show me how this choice is somehow extremist in his beliefs, or back off and admit that you jumped to a knee-jerk reaction.

Did it ever occur to you that a knowledgable Muslim may actually be the PERFECT choice for this position? Really, if you believe that it is the religion of Islam that is terrorist, instead of terrorists using Islam, then who better to know the best way to combat the enemy???

Put down the shovel and move on already. Else show me something extreme from the appointee.

An atheist is actually the best choice IMO as decisions can be made based off deduction with beliefs held aside.

[Stoner]

Brett..........observation........the more you post, the deeper you dig your hole.

Once you accomplish this religious cleansing, are you going to start with the radical fundamentalists ( referred to as Christians by some) that argue to destroy the educational system of the US and replace the US Constitution with a document that places them in control of a new religious theocracy that outlaws freedom of religion and installs their own fundamentalism and translation of the Holy Bible as the laws of the land?

Or support their overthrow of our existing society?


Looks like a slippery slope you traverse.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

An atheist is actually the best choice IMO as decisions can be made based off deduction with beliefs held aside.

The hole just got deeper

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Brett..........observation........the more you post, the deeper you dig your hole.

Once you accomplish this religious cleansing, are you going to start with the radical fundamentalists ( referred to as Christians by some) that argue to destroy the educational system of the US and replace the US Constitution with a document that places them in control of a new religious theocracy that outlaws freedom of religion and installs their own fundamentalism and translation of the Holy Bible as the laws of the land?

Or support their overthrow of our existing society?


Looks like a slippery slope you traverse.

We appear to be getting off topic again.
The topic is appointing 2 devout Muslims in positions of national security.
Why take the chance?

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by Stoner

The hole just got deeper

Thats a fox hole

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

We appear to be getting off topic again.
The topic is appointing 2 devout Muslims in positions of national security.
Why take the chance?

No....your point was to restrict people of a particular religious pov from serving and I presented you with the problem you face in designing a system that is biased in regards to freedom of religion.
I presented you with another scenario that I think you need to address.


It's not an easy problem to solve, I agree.......but your path looks pretty ugly, imo. Once you start on a path to religious persecution, where does it stop?

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

Thats a fox hole

That's a hole you have to live in.

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by Stoner

No....your point was to restrict people of a particular religious pov from serving and I presented you with the problem you face in designing a system that is biased in regards to freedom of religion.
I presented you with another scenario that I think you need to address.


It's not an easy problem to solve, I agree.......but your path looks pretty ugly, imo. Once you start on a path to religious persecution, where does it stop?

There is no restriction its an appointed job.....not the same as {one denied a job due to religious beliefs}.

This is much the same as the other picks that have been made by the administration...they make no sense..tax cheats etc..an armload of picks which appear the opposite of what the job will be.....This thread is to just merely show another ingredient of the famed Obama soup,that comes with every meal complete with Koolaid

[iltos]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

The ten points are what they are..they were not assembled by me but used for the sake of simplicity form a web page.

i know....that's my entire point...you accept them because they support your concerns
i reject them....because even a hint of respect and bit of research reveals them to be a major agenda, spreading it own version of fear and mistrust......

you challenged us to respond.....i did....and the one specific thing you say about that response is.

A true follower of Islam as said will not mingle with jews or christians

which leads me to wonder if you even bothered to read anything in the links i posted....
ok....so maybe your arguement is that terrorists don't read those links either......fair enough.....
but the point remains that all muslims are not terrorists, and that the "ten points" are not valid for practitioners of the muslim faith.....not even the ones who twist the qua'ran to meet their needs.
.

And as you say.....with that said can we truly trust know admitted followers of Islam in positions of national security...No we cant due to the fact that acting out on the religion can put us all in great peril.

hold on there, big boy......what i said was that i acknowledge your concerns....what i did was point out how those concerns were not an issue during the bush administration....if it wasn't clear then, let me clear it up now: the fact that being muslim was not a concern during the bush administration is not a bash against that administration...it's an illustration of your sources cherry picking to support their agenda, which seeks to reinforce the fear that obama -with his muslim background- is choosing muslims for national security positions in an effort to undermine america.....

terrorism doesn't have to cut off heads to create an atmosphere of fear and loathing.....ask hunter s. thompson.......words can do just as well

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

An atheist is actually the best choice IMO as decisions can be made based off deduction with beliefs held aside.

Once again, I ask .... Is there anything this nominee has said which you feel should disqualify him for the position.

Simply being of the Muslim faith is not enough to disqualify this person for the job. In actuality, it might make him an even better selection for the post.