First Muslim in Congress to use Thomas Jefferson's quran

Actually, it's based on your opinion.

 

LE, you are such a drama queen.

 

Either parse it to death, else you're a drama queen?

Not officially,and?

See I done figgured that when I saw this:

Then this:

I'll take it a step further, this is the middle ground...the compromise between CAIR and the Democrat Party 2007...a Nation of Islam member, a native-born American using a book that one of the founders of his party despised, Ellison's trying to appease both groups that helped him along...

 

Just watch on C-SPAN tomorrow when the representatives are sworn in on the floor of the House and you will see that they are not placing their hand on any book. That will be done in a separate photo op.

 

What evidence beyond your own imagination do you have that Jefferson despised his Koran or that he obtained it merely to understand the pirates of Barbary?

 

So what is your solution LE? Should we violate the constitution and now require a religious oath and ban any religion "we" don't like from office?

I am MUCH happier with this situation than ANY limitation of religious liberty!

I don't want my chidlren and grandchildren living in a land which restricts the rights of people to choose their religion or deny the people the right to choose who they want to represent them.

Would that be any better that Sharia law?

An American chose his own religious practice. The people of his state elected him to office. How is that wrong?

 

CLICK HERE for an interesting viewpoint

 

Dispute it if you want to, I'm not going to give you evidence about anything ever, you don't set the rules. I don't care what YOU think at all about anything.

Why not? Because you're rude and insulting, that's why. Must have edited the word out:

Fetid? NYC indeed.

 

Do you have any evidence 777 that Jefferson hated the Qu'ran like he hated the writings of the Apostle Paul?

(One of many sources - just the first one I googled) - http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/notable_quotes.htm

 

The whole tradition of "swearing an oath" on a Bible or any other book needs to be questioned. If it is true that the official oath of office includes no such book, I am glad. But if people need to create photo ops with Bibles, Korans, or anything else, what is that all about? Appealing to superstition?

As Christians surely we remember the words of Jesus, that we are not to swear by anything, but let our yea be yea, etc. In other words, elected officials do need to promise to uphold certain things, but we need to pay more attention to their character than to their photo props!

 

What Republican Congressmen back in the 20s were members of the KKK? Here in the South, traditionally KKK members were Democrats, since Republicans rarely got elected to anything. Please list the Republican Congressmen who were KKK members. Thanks

 

^^^Strom Thurmond, but he switched parties.

Heh, I don't know if Jefferson hated the Koran that much, but Jefferson seemed to dislike all organized religion.

But, for you, this:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011325.php

Jefferson wrote ALOT, a collection of most of it on this site:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/

From above, re the Barbary Pirate war, he wrote:

Still sounds just like an early nineteenth-century "neo-con" to me.

 

Don't know about that one either since at the time of our Founding Fathers there were instances of State Constitutions which prohibited atheists and Jews from holding elected office. Wasn't one of John Adams last great political battles in his life getting Massachusetts to change their state constitution where Jews could serve in politcal office? (Or maybe I have him confused with another founding father)

Of course the Founding Fathers never said the Pledge of Allegiance, with or without inserting "GOD" in the text, so what does that really say about them???:laugh:

 

I still have to wonder if his thougths were politically or religiously motivated. Thanks for the quotes though - good insight.

My problem here was basing a argument on the fact that Jefferson hated the Qu'ran, therefore it should not be used in a publicity shot oath taking.

He also hated all the Bible except the words of Christ. If Jefferson's feelings were a litmus test neither book should be used.

 

Strom didn't switch to Republican until 1964...well after the 1920s we were talking about. In addition, he didn't go to Washington until 1954, as US Senator, he wasn't in Congress in the 1920s. In fact, have never been able to verify that Strom was ever a memeber of the KKK, even before he became Governor in 1947.

Nice try.

 

Then your posts may be ignored, as without evidence, they are baseless assertions. One can make any claim, but for them to be credible requires evidence.

 

I'm bailing after this....^^^

Well, yeah, he wrote his own Bible. I just thought it was funny that a Nation of Islam members being sworn in on a copy of Jefferson's Koran. But Jefferson was the most anti-religious of all the Founding Fathers.

I'm not going to prove that the Earth is spherical. Why don't you pull pro-Islam quotes by Jefferson...because they don't exist, do they?

Ignoring my "baseless assertions" is exactly what I want her to do, "fetid", remember?

More of a pre-emptive strike than a try, the KKK, that was and is Democrat Party stomping grounds, but liberals don't like to remember that, it's inconvienent history for them.

 

Yes, I did edit it a moment after I had posted because I found it horribly rude and insulting. I apologize for having posted it and I'm truly sorry you saw it before I could take it back. Please forgive me.

 

However,

JihadWatch, eh? Perhaps it wasn't Muslim behavior that bothered them as much as it was Pirate behavior with which America had more than a passing familiarity (we called them privateers).

He didn't write what you quoted; that was written about him. It is well-written by a Jefferson scholar, but Jefferson did not write it. Furthermore, that article mentions pirates (it is entitled "America and the Barbary Pirates) and piracy but not Muslims, Mohammedans, the Koran or anything to do with Islam, so that does not support your contention in the least.

He was a radical, enlightened revolutionary - not much of a "neo-con" to me.