Religious Intolerance Alive & Well in US

[fossten]

This is :bsflag: and you know it. I stayed away from the board for nearly a month, only to come back after new years to find plenty of "flaring up" that had transpired without my presence, including insults directed at me when I haven't even "been around". The ONLY time anything "flares up" is when you resort to your pitiful insults towards anyone and everyone who does not agree with you. Get over yourself, little boy. You are as insiginificant as a mosquito's "klingon".

Oh, touched a nerve, did I? LOL Must be getting too close to the truth. You just stomp those little feet, Johnny. You are the worst name caller and drive by troll in here and everybody knows it. You just keep on hurling those insults, maybe it makes you feel good. Talk about lack of credibility. You never had any and you never will.

By the way, your insults SUCK. You're not any better at it than the 5th-graders you hung out with last year.

 

[fossten]

You see, this is exactly why YOU have zero credibility and are incapable of making a valid argument. Your reading comprehension is clouded by your poluted imagination, so you make up stuff in a weak attempt to build a false basis for an argument that doesn't even exist. When cornered, you resort to name calling and try to weasle out by changing the topic. I was talking about freedom of religion, not Islam, you dufus. DEE DEE DEE.




Considering your intolerance of other religions and desire for an oppressive government and laws that are derived solely by a single religion, YOU would certainly feel more at home there.

Calabrio, thanks for posting those articles. However, Prager is merely backpedaling and clouding the issue to cover his ass. But this thread isn't about Prager, it's about religious (in-) tolerance. While it is true that the constitution acknowledges "a creator", it doesn't name that creator (God, Buddah etc) to make it clear that every man is free to choose his religious beliefs for himself..... unlike those like Prager and David who'd prefer to shove his/her choice of religion down everyone else's throat and deny one's basic, constitutionally protected freedom to choose. Besides, even Prager notes, there is no law of this land that makes the Bible the official religious document by which we must all abide by or swear an oath upon.

LOL I notice that you can't even speak to the article about Thomas Jefferson, which TOTALLY DISCREDITS your article and its pathetic author.

Just keep on dodging the point and hurling insults, pathetic amateur.

 

[MonsterMark]

Are we done with the insults back and forth now or do I start using my 'executive powers'?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Are we done with the insults back and forth now or do I start using my 'executive powers'?

With all due respect, Brian (and only because you are a moderator), piss off.

Now that your boy is on the ropes (he's so desperate he's now insulting my insults????), you decide to step in....... NOW??? LOL, that doesn't even pass the giggle test. YOU KNOW what the problem is. YOU KNOW who instigates 99% of the insults and personal attacks around here. YOU KNOW that this issue isn't just between Fossten and myself. Why don't you try addressing the issue with the root cause for a change instead of defending your boy a throwing out a blanket threat to everyone?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

"Thereby making his oath invalid?" Are you kidding? Like you can trust any politician to keep his word anyway? Puhleeze. Don't make me laugh. I'm not falling for your silly trap question.

If this is how you feel, then why do you even care about what book our lawmakers swear-in on?? One can only conclude that your participation in this thread is merely an excuse to hurl your pointless personal attacks. HYPOCRITE.

Personally, I feel that our lawmakers should swear into office on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. NOT some book full of articles written by men thousands of years ago and translated numerous times over the centuries. I expect my lawmakers to uphold the laws of this land, not of some irrelevant, and still debateable fantasy.

 

[fossten]

Bak. Derk-derk-Allah. Derka derka, Mohammed Jihad. Haka sherpa-sherpa. Abaka-la.

Whatever you say, Al-Ahmadinejohnny.

 

[Calabrio]

As we know, Ellison used a koran owned by Thomas Jefferson during his public swearing in ceremony. Do you think he actually opened it up?

The version of the Koran Jefferson owned was apparently translated by a man named George Sales in 1734. Jefferson read the Koran before battling the Barbary Coast Pirates that were terrorizing and enslaving Americans at sea.

Of note is the preface included in that copy of the Koran that Ellison chose to swear in on:

"I IMAGINE it almost needless either to make an apology for publishing the following translation, or to go about to prove it a work of use as well as curiosity. They must have a mean opinion of the Christian religion, or be but grounded therein, who can apprehend any danger from manifest a forgery: and if the religious and civil insti­tutions of foreign nations are worth our knowledge, those of Muhammad, the lawgiver of the Arabians, and founder of an empire which in less than a century spread itself over a greater part of the world than the Romans were ever masters of, must needs be so; whether we consider their extensive obtaining, or our frequent intercourse with those who are governed thereby. I shall not here inquire into the reasons why the law of Muhammad has met with so unexampled a reception in the world (for they are greatly deceived who imagine it to have been propagated by the sword alone), or by what means it came to be embraced by nations which never felt the force of the Muhammadan arms, and even by those which stripped the Arabians of their conquests, and put an end to the sovereignty and very being of their Khalifahs; yet it seems as if there was something more than what is vulgarly imagined in a religion which has made so surprising a progress. But whatever use an impartial version of the Qura'n may be of in other respects, it is absolutely neces­sary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture; none of those who have hitherto undertaken that province, not excepting Dr. Prideaux himself, having succeeded to the satisfaction of the judicious, for want of being complete masters of the controversy. The writers of the Romish communion, in particular; are so far from having done any service in their refutations of Muhammadanism, that by endeavouring to defend their idolatry and other superstitions, they have rather contributed to the increase of that aversion which the Muhammadans in general have to the Christian re­ligion, and given them great advantages in the dispute. The Protestants alone are able to attack the Qur'an with success; and for them, I trust, Providence has reserved the glory of its overthrow."