Not really.....
Posted on 03/21/2012 9:49:13 AM PDT by pinochet
America commits a great injustice to Muslims when it offers them citizenship, without explaining to them the obligations that America requires from its citizens, and the values on which America was founded.
America is a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and the laws and culture of America reflects a Judeo-Christian ethic. The Muslim Quran requires Muslims to wage jihad on Christians and Jews, and not to accept them as friends.
We need to change the oath of citizenship, so that immigrant Muslims can understand the obligations and responsibilities that America requires from its citizens. The oath of citizenship should require all citizens to declare in public, that they put the American constitution ahead of Allah, the Prophet Mohammed, and the Holy Quran. This will ensure that genuine Muslims do not become citizens. While Muslims are allowed to lie in order to advance Islamic interests, no genuine Muslim would ever publicly declare that he puts America ahead of Allah, Mohammed, and the Quran.
A Muslim who believes in Islam, the same way in which Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama believe in Christianity, is not a real Muslim, and therefore, not a threat to America. Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama do not believe in the Bible, and such a hypothetical Muslim would not believe in the Quran. But any Muslim who believes in the Quran, and considers the crazy Prophet Mohammed as a role model, is a real threat to America.
Can Democrats be loyal to America? I don’t think so, and that explains why we will continue to see the Islamic population grow. Islam has become another militant branch of the Democratic Party.
Not really.....
New book says Obama blamed Fox News for losing white males
Some things in life, like death and taxes, are inevitable. It is also inevitable that Barack Obama will find someone - or something - to blame for his own failures.
Throughout his Presidency, he has blamed - among others - former President George W. Bush, the economic situation in Europe, the Internet, ATM machines and a “messy” democracy for his own inability to get the job done. He has even blamed the Founding Fathers for producing a Constitution that prevents him from ruling like a dictator.
Now, he has added Fox News to that list.
According to a new book by journalist David Corn, the President blamed Fox News for losing support among white males.
Politico reported:
In “Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party” — which hits bookstores on Tuesday — the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones chronicles the White House from the 2010 midterm elections to the start of the 2012 campaign. The book focuses on key moments of Obama’s presidency, such as Osama bin Laden’s assassination, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Arab Spring, the debt ceiling crisis, and the president’s dealings with Congress.
According to Corn, after the 2010 midterm elections, in which Obama’s Democrats got “shellacked,” Obama told labor leaders he held the cable network partly responsible for “losing white males.”
“…Fed by Fox News, they hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in…The Republicans have been at this for 40 years. They have new resources, but the strategy is old,” Corn recalls the President saying.
But is that claim true?
A Google search on Fox News’ website using the term “Obama is a Muslim” only returned about 387 results - hardly the number one would expect if the President was truly being called a Muslim 24 hours a day, seven days a week as he claimed.
Shortly after that election, Obama blamed the voters, saying people just didn’t understand the historic message he and his party were putting out - in other words, voters handed the Republicans a historic win because they were just too stupid to recognize his great and wonderful message.
I don ‘t know any muslims.....which is fine with me....
Hmmm....except that it seems lately that more and more self-proclaimed atheists are turning out to be agnostics who are uncertain about the “nonexistence” of G-d, including arch-atheist Richard Dawkins.
Less of a conflict with U.S. values, IMO.
I don’t comment here very often, but your statement made me sick.
My brother is currently in the Air Force and spent many years in the Army 82nd Airborne. He has served 2 tours in the Middle East and now guards a location here in Texas.
You don’t believe he is an American patriot because he doesn’t believe the same things you believe? My brother believes he is fighting to protect liberty and freedom, a freedom which includes the right to believe what you want.
He took his history classes and learned the foundation of our discovery. He acknowledges it and appreciates it. He just has a different belief system.
Nonetheless, he’d die to protect you. You who just said he is not an American patriot. Wow.
No.
Actually, what I believe has nothing to do with it. The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of our national character. It asserts that this nation's legitimacy, indeed right to exist is rooted in the "laws of nature, and Nature's God," and that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights.
If one does not subscribe to those beliefs, by definition, one's beliefs about this nation's very raison d'être are at variance with those of the signatories of that document and the founders of this nation.
That does nothing to take away from your brother's service, nor any other self-proclaimed atheist that has honorably served this country. I'm sure he has his reasons for doing so. Perhaps it's to defend the nation that has allowed him and others of his persuasion to be true to their beliefs and prosper. Perhaps it's that and a combination of other things. I didn't say an atheist couldn't love the USA, only that the founding principles were inconsistent with their beliefs. I can love, appreciate and even defend organizations with whom my beliefs are at variance. That doesn't make me a member of that organization.
To believe that rights are bestowed by a power greater than man or government presupposes the belief that such a power exists. To deny the existence of such a power leads one to the conclusion that either:
a. No such unalienable rights really exist.
or
b. What rights do exist are extended to us by other men or governments.
This nation was founded on principles that are completely antithetical to either of those conclusions.
Because atheists do not believe in a God of Nature or a Creator, the Declaration of Independence does not apply to them? They do not subscribe to those beliefs, so they are still British citizens? My brother will be tickled to hear that and so will the guys he fights beside. His passport is all wrong!!! Perhaps the next time he gets a speeding ticket, he can use this argument.
I think Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you. I believe the Founding Fathers would welcome my brother and all other America-loving atheist patriots in with open arms.
There certainly are Muslims In Name Only, who only go along out of fear, and while they may identify themselves as Muslim, don’t necessarily believe in the religion.
I never said it didn't apply to them. They are the beneficiaries of the theistic thought process that recognizes Nature's God endows all men with certain unalienable rights. Our founders were quite adamant about that, and it's precisely because they held that those rights were ordained by a power greater than and above men and governments. The reason they believed that atheists were every bit as entitled to the same rights as theists is precisely because they believed in a divine source of those rights, and no man or government dare impede or trample them.
" They do not subscribe to those beliefs, so they are still British citizens?"
That's absurd and has no relevance whatsoever to anything I've said.
"My brother will be tickled to hear that and so will the guys he fights beside."
While they're laughing why not ask them if they believe in unalienable rights. If so, ask where they think they come from.
"I think Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you. I believe the Founding Fathers would welcome my brother and all other America-loving atheist patriots in with open arms."
Would that be the same Jefferson that said, "The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them"?
You're becoming overly emotional. I've never said an atheist couldn't be a good, productive American citizen. I've never said an atheist couldn't love America to the point of giving his or her life in defense of her. I would give my life in defense of the synagogue down the street, but that doesn't make me Jewish.
I do however, define a patriot as one who fully embraces the principles, goals, objectives and ideals of his/her country. In the terms of the USA, that means acknowledging a power that rules over all nature and grants men with unalienable rights. It needn't be specifically "God" in a traditional Judeo-Christian construct. It may be something more in a Deist or transcendentalist tradition, etc., but if one is to fully embrace the beliefs of our founders, and what they chose to declare and pledge to defend with their lives, fortunes and sacred honors, one simply has to accept an immutable, eternal, transcendent source of such rights. There is nothing in a traditional atheistic worldview that allows for or accepts such as a possibility.
Again, detach yourself from your emotions. I'm sure your brother is a fine fellow who has served honorably (and almost assuredly stated "So Help Me God" in either his commissioning or enlistment oath). The fact is, if he does not perceive our rights as having been bestowed upon us from a higher power, he does not share the same view our founders. There's simply no way around that.
If he is loyal to the United States, he is an apostate and as worthy of death as us Infidels.
In B4 the grammar police!
There is no need to. It is consistent with Christianity. It is not consistent with islam.
Point well made and taken.
#35 applies to your reply as well.
Islam and secularism cannot co-exist.
As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. It is indeed a false claim that Shari’ah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: “Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (Qur’an, 2:140) For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari’ah is downright apostasy.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244545/inventing-moderate-islam-andrew-c-mccarthy
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.