The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

The Separation of Islamophilia from State

By on 8.19.10 @ 6:09AM

Obama’s religious boosterism gets him into another mess.

By modern secularist standards, Barack Obama’s boosterism for Islam violates the “separation between Church and state.” Had George W. Bush held a rosary and modest fish dinner at the White House to mark the beginning of Lent, the ACLU left would have freaked out. But these same secularists didn’t mind Barack’s “Iftar dinner” last Friday night.

That is, until he wimped out on his endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque. Now his dinner looks to them more like the production of Ishtar, as finger-to-the-wind Dems cravenly scramble for cover. The search is on for a “compromise.” Perhaps the self-styled Solomonic Obama can convince the mosque planners to transfer their property rights to NASA. Administrator Charles Bolden could then turn the land into a satellite office for contractors who pursue the space agency’s “perhaps foremost” mission (as explained to him by Obama): “to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science…and math and engineering.”

The moment one thinks this presidency has hit the bottom of grim parody it finds a new one. It is hard to keep track of them at this point, but any list of the White House’s greatest Islamophilic hits would have to include: wanting a civilian jury trial for the 9/11 planners, refusing to identify radical Islam as a terrorist motive, endorsing the concept of jihad, fretting over the loss of “diversity” after the Fort Hood shooting, and vacationing through the fallout of an aborted Christmas day bombing over Detroit.

The White House’s ideologically willful self-delusion about radical Islam is staggering. Here, for example, is its self-reporting at whitehouse.gov about the Ramadan dinner: “Last night, President Obama continued the White House tradition of hosting an Iftar — the meal that breaks the day of fasting —celebrating Ramadan in the State Dining Room.” Continued a tradition? Exactly which White House tradition is that?

The answer: Obama was referring not to a White House “tradition” but to one distant event that he carefully left vague: Thomas Jefferson’s war negotiations with Tunisian envoy Sidi Soliman Mellimelli.

Jefferson, desperate to end the Barbary war with Islamic pirates, invited Mellimelli to Washington for negotiations. According to Gaye Wilson, the visit put Jefferson and his staff on the spot: James Madison, then the Secretary of State, had to field Mellimelli’s request for “concubines.” Jefferson told shocked colleagues to calm down; after all, peace with the Barbary pirates required passing “unnoticed the irregular conduct of their ministers.” Mellimelli, in his own way, was grateful. After hearing some gossip about the wan mood of the childless Madisons,  he “flung his ‘magical’ cloak around Dolley Madison and murmured an incantation that promised she would bear a male child. His conjuring, however, did not work.”

The war negotiations happened to coincide with Ramadan. Consequently, a scheduled dinner at the White House had to be moved back from “half after three” to “precisely at sunset” in order for Mellimelli to show up.

While it is true that the basically agnostic Jefferson was an arrogant secularist in embryo (the type on display now who dislikes all religions save Islam), he was under no illusions about jihadists. The Obama White House makes references to the “Koran” Jefferson owned, as if he had purchased it for religious edification. The truth is that he purchased it for self-protection: he wanted to understand the attitudes and war tactics of the Barbary pirates.

The cocky frat-boy “Republican” on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, a hopelessly smug lightweight who tries to weigh in on the “big issues” of the day when not playing early-morning grabass with his equally shallow but self-important guests, has said repeatedly that the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment to protect projects like the Ground Zero mosque. No, they didn’t. “Morning Joe” is mistaking Thurgood Marshall’s “living” Constitution for theirs.

While the Founding Fathers certainly didn’t want anyone coerced in matters of faith, they wrote it to protect the states from a future federal government that might swoop down and crush the public religious life of majorities in those states. (And, by the way, let’s cut the PC crap about Jefferson as the father of the First Amendment; he wasn’t even at the Constitutional Convention. He was in France as an ambassador, gazing with approval at budding French Revolutionaries.) For many decades after the Constitution was enacted several states still had religious litmus tests for public office and sent tax dollars directly to the churches of their choice.  

In other words, it is the very First Amendment that Scarborough mangles which permits New Yorkers to block the construction of a mosque. The First Amendment was designed to protect the majority from the tyranny of a religious minority favored by the federal government. What radical Islam’s useful idiots in the White House and the press call “religious freedom,” the founders would have called insanely dumb religious relativism and self-hating stupidity.

About the Author

George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (161) |

Stephanie| 8.19.10 @ 7:11AM

Damn George, great writing! Tell it like it is!
Obama is a fool and will continue to kiss the Islamic/muslim behind and we, who, according to Ms Pelosi, must now be investigated because we oppose the mosque being built within a stones throw of the twin towers, will have to continue to be vigilant to hold this idiots feet to the fire.

I bet he's sorry he even opened his ugly piehole at that "White House tradition" dinner.

michigander_sandusky| 8.19.10 @ 7:26AM

The problem is that Obama is not "sorry he even opened his ugly piehole at that 'White House tradition' dinner." This man's hubris is off the charts!

vtwin| 8.19.10 @ 9:17AM

Why do SOME conservatives hate Islam to the point where they’re willing to trash our constitution?

Steve A| 8.19.10 @ 9:31AM

vtwin, For once, you may actually have a point although I do not think it is a "hatred of Islam" as much as a resentment & recognition of the double standard. The Mosque location is at minnimum, EXTREMELY poor taste. At worst, a symbol of defiance & conquest. 99% of conservatives recognize the legal right to build it there. This is not the issue.

vtwin| 8.19.10 @ 10:22AM

First, I apologize for not capitalizing the proper noun; Constitution.

“The Mosque location is at minimum, EXTREMELY poor taste.”

I disagree, the building of this Mosque is NOT a memorial to the attackers but rather an expression of builder’s faith in their religion, which ONLY by coincidence is share with the criminals of 9/11, NOR is it an act of “defiance “or symbol of “conquest.”

“Rights,” in the Constitution, the wisdom of our forefathers.

Ryan| 8.19.10 @ 12:55PM

Apparently, there is some feeling in some parts of the Muslim world that it IS a sign of conquest; and its name (Cordova) and the matter that it has been Muslim tradition to erect monuments in conquered areas doesn't speak well in favor of it.

That, combined with some of the mullah's words and actions.

I'm in the "this smells funny" camp regarding the mosque, because I have SOME understanding of Islam that isn't the lefty feel-good nor the "all Muslims are terrorists" camp.

To specifically deny that it ISN'T a symbol of their conquest I think ignores certain parts of the ways Muslims do things.

Margie| 8.19.10 @ 4:02PM

Ryan,

Rhetorical question: Was Obama lying when he said he was a Christian?

Ryan| 8.20.10 @ 9:56AM

I like answering these. It makes us think.

It's an issue that shouldn't be this complicated.

First off, I don't subscribe that he's some sort of Islamic Manchurian candidate. It's too complicated a conspiracy to pull off.

His actions throughout his presidency toward the Muslims worldwide I think more stem from his hard-left liberalism - which would produce the same results - than some sort of adherence to Islam.

Second, I think best-case HE believes that he's a Christian, but holds to some VERY bad theology (black liberation or something similar), so much that it may put him outside the bounds of real salvation.

Worst-case, he went to, or simply was a member of, Jeremiah Wright's church simply for political purposes.

Fredrick Ward| 8.19.10 @ 12:57PM

That would explain why they have built a mosque on top of the ruins of every site they have ever conquered right?

vtwin| 8.19.10 @ 1:34PM

We were conquered?

Clinton nee Publius| 8.19.10 @ 2:20PM

Since you know so much, maybe you could tell us what a Muslim tastes like.

Fredrick Ward| 8.19.10 @ 7:05PM

No, but I'll be happy to tell you what you taste like after I cut a steak off you.

Impeach Don't Wait| 8.19.10 @ 3:23PM

"We were conquered?"

No, but 3,000 died = victory! (in the radical muslim mind)

Bonsage| 8.19.10 @ 11:50PM

Was the infamous and unsatisfactorily explained Air Force One flyover of Ground Zero a scouting expedition for the Islamic Center, or a "victory lap" - just wondering.

martin| 8.19.10 @ 3:38PM

I don't know about the USA, but here "Vienna/Austria" is being slowly conquered. One can notice the change in the food being sold in one-man shops on the streets. 15 years ago there was NO ISLAMIC food available on the streets, only traditionally Austrian food. Today 8 out of 10 shops (in my neighborhood) which used to sell Austrian food were forced to switch to ISLAMIC only, even if there would be enough space, to cater to both tastes but since the food is made from mostly pórk-meat, it is forbidden to Muslims. So the shop-owner can not do what he wants: SELL both types, Muslims refuse to buy where there is Pork-meat prepared. Maybe to you its a stupid example but it is clearly a sign how the Islamic WAY OF LIFE, is forcing itself unto the “unbelievers”.

Bob Grant| 8.19.10 @ 10:13PM

Interesting, thanks...these people make tiny strides throughout society that seem unconnected. By the time it's noticed, they're too entrenched to force a change.

A good read on this is Mark Steyn's America Alone...in it he tells of a gigantic mosque (the largest in England and one of the largest in Europe) located across the street of Olympic Stadium which is under construction and scheduled to open in time for the Olympics in 2008.

Just like the ground zero project, this is supposed to be one of those "statement of conquest" mosques being built around the world.

Wake up people !!

jonc| 8.20.10 @ 10:04AM

Let me, as a "Limey" assure you all that the "2012" mosque plan has been quietly scuppered.
I know that a group intended to build it, but in the end on planning grounds it was denied.
In fact the group "Tablighi Jamaat" has been forced to totally vacate the site ,which it was occupying illegally after the expiration of its lease.

L C Johnson| 8.19.10 @ 6:50PM

The destruction of the WT towers is to Muslims a symbol of dominance over the Infidels. Even partial conquest short of total dominance have historically been marked by the construction of mosques, wherever practicable on the site of, or utilizing in some degree, a pre-existing Christian place of worship or learning.

lsturner| 8.19.10 @ 1:01PM

Do you think for a minute, the symbolism of the Crescent Moon rising on top of the Cordoba Mosque and over Ground Zero to the thousands of Muslim young men being radicalized around the world is lost to the Iman and his followers pushing this mosque -- I think not.

DRed| 8.19.10 @ 1:13PM

The crescent moon on top of the mosque? Over ground zero? What are you talking about?

Larry in Iowa| 8.19.10 @ 1:24PM

To all the useful idiots who say this is not a deliberate provocation by Islamists I have a simple question. If a group of Anti-American, Anti-Western Islamists were to concoct a plan to poke their figurative finger in the eye of America, what would they do differently? What is the difference between the Cordoba mosque and the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount?

Like a giant dog, they want to mark their territory. The American left, since they share the same attitude towards America as the Islamists, has no problem with that.

collenga| 8.20.10 @ 9:13AM

I agree 100%. I wish the moderate left could see this analogy.

Meadowlark| 8.20.10 @ 4:55PM

I think they do but do not know what to do about it. They cannot depend on the elected officials or the media so, what is left?

Radegunda| 8.19.10 @ 9:46PM

The "builder's faith in their religion" [sic] includes faith that Allah commanded them to dominate the world, including the U.S., and that the destruction of the Twin Towers was a great victory over the infidels. Even some Muslims acknowledge that's why they're hell-bent on that specific site.

Do you really not know even that much about Islam?

collenga | 8.20.10 @ 9:18AM

Well apostates have been warning us about the 'Religion of Peace' for years but Muslims deny, deny,deny and if you point out how dangerous their religion is, muslims and their left supporters call you a racist. Why is it so taboo to talk or inquire about the roots and beliefs of this so-called religion? That in itself should be a great concern.

Bob Grant| 8.19.10 @ 9:52PM

Vtwin...I'm not necessarily calling you thick skulled but I am banging my head against the wall trying to convince other people of your mindset - who indeed have thick skulls - that WE GET ALL OF THAT. We understand the constitutional aspect of this.

We just want our leader - preferably the President - to beg them not to build there out of respect to the 911 victims and there families WHO TAKE PRECEDENCE over any other group, including muslims.

You'd think Mr. Obama could put his superior verbal skills to good use to persuade them not to move forward on the project.

SADLY, not only does he decline to be neutral, he chooses yet again to kick sand in the faces of the American people by escalating an already heated situation. This is a definitve pattern with him and is disappointing and disturbing.

tdiinva| 8.19.10 @ 10:23AM

Friend, actually it is the Mosque supporters who are trashing the First Amendment's establishment clause. St. Nicholas Orthodox Church has been fighting with the Port Authority to rebuild their Church which was destroyed when the WTC collapsed. The Port Authority has denied their application to rebuild. By allowing the Mosque while at the same time preventing a Church from rebuilding in the same general location the government is favoring one religion over another.

Why to Progressives hate Christianity so much that they are willing to tolerate Islamic hatred toward homosexuals and the subjugation, including the murder, of women?

vtwin| 8.19.10 @ 10:48AM

I’m not a “Mosque supporters,” I’m a Constitution supporter!

tdiinva| 8.19.10 @ 10:54AM

Really? Have you written a letter to the New York Port Authority demanding that St Nicholas be allow to be rebuit? Would attend a demonstration of support for the Church.

vtwin| 8.19.10 @ 1:52PM

"St. Nicholas Orthodox Church has always had and will continue to have the right to rebuild on its original location.” -- Port Authority

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....urch-dead/

Mark Shepler- Jupiter, FL| 8.19.10 @ 11:10AM

I hate islam, revere our constitution and do not see your point. Has a government authority federal, state or local, forbid the mosque? Or is it citizen outrage you equate with trashing the constitution? But we do know that governmental authority has forbid the rebuilding of a Greek Orthodox church that stood nearby for decades and was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks by the very same team that now want to put a Victory mosque over its ruins. Of course, there is no religious animosity at work, it's all over esthetics and building codes and so that's all very constitutional, legal and ok with liberals, yes? That the height of their dome and other appointments is not crucial to their sense of purpose and mission according to the authorities and is thus perfectly legitimate grounds for exclusion, right? And if the muslims want a minaret? Or the twice daily public call to prayer? What then will you say? BTW, what was your opinion on our government's response to that Christian sect out west that was "marrying" young daughters off to the elders? Wasn't that freedom of religion? Well, if you approved of that sect you'll love islam.

But as for my hating islam, I hate it as I hate Nazism and Communism. I hate it for the antithesis that it is to everything we hold dear. I hate its nightmare looking glass world that demands the opposite, on pain of death, of all that we believe and cherish where ever it holds sway. I hate that it would make 3rd class citizens of my family as Christians should they let us live, abject slaves of my daughters and wife, corpses of my gay friends, all Jews and non-believers, broken subjects of the most intolerant theocracy and voiceless serfs in the ultimate anti-democracy. Does each muslim dream of this conquest and get in the game to take his shot for allah? Of course not but neither did my German grandfather and millions like him for Hitler. Still, they went with his ideology and program and made the holocaust possible. They acquiesced one step at a time towards the abyss and to this day millions of Germans will protest their moderation while maintaining Naziism wasn't all that bad. After all, they DID make the trains run on time and restored German pride, no?

Islamists state very plainly what they want. Of course, the smooth, westernized imam is more circumspect in his remarks as were the American German Bund and Communists in their turn. But his mission is their mission all the same- to convert all the world to islam, kill and subject those who resist and die in the trying if need be. You don't have to take my word for it, do a little homework on islam. This proposed Victory mosque is a statement and monument to that purpose and we should reject it as we would a Fascist Bund hall.

L. Ross| 8.19.10 @ 11:31AM

Right on, Mr. Shepler. Couldn't agree more with your comments, except the call to prayer occurs five times a day, not twice. And trust me, you don't want to sleep next to one of their lousdpeakers.

L. Ross| 8.19.10 @ 11:28AM

As one of the conservatives who truly hates islam, I will attempt to answer your question.

Islam is not a religion in the conventional sense. It is a totalitarian system dedicated to world conquest. I have read books and books on the subject, but just to hit a few highlights.

Islam divides the world in the "The House of Islam" (Dar al Islam), and "The House of War" (Dar al Harb). The meaning behind these phrases is that it is impossible to be at peace with a non-muslim nation.

Islam is a unique religion in that its founder was not a man of peace, but a warlord. Other religions support concepts like "peace on earth, goodwill towards men". Islam does not. Islam supports domination and subjugation.

Finally, I firmly believe that islam is not protected by the U.S. Constitution, because islam seeks to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with sharia law. As a military member, I am sworn to defend the Constitution, and right now I can see no enemy foreign or domestic more in need of defending against than islam.

Mark Shepler- Jupiter, FL| 8.19.10 @ 11:59AM

"because islam seeks to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with sharia law." Bingo. Obama, all elected officials and right down to the lowliest private soldier swear to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies. Islam is the enemy of our constitution and its spread here must be resisted as if our lives depend on it. Because our lives, as we know it, do. Individual muslims not necessarily so. This tension presents the greatest test of our republic since the civil war. The constitution guarantees private property. But is a man private property? We settled that one after only much blood and grief. Now the question is, Shall we let in an alien, hostile, aggressive ideology that would overthrow our Constitution given the chance in the name of the Constitution? An ideology whose allies and supporters elsewhere openly declare their intentions thus? Indeed, the very people this defiant imam admits will fund his Victory mosque? Can we tolerate the intolerable? Would we permit a recruitment center for an American SS established, funded and supported by the Fatherland?

I submit liberals are sanguine about it because they feel safe. Muslims, and their belief, are yet a distinct minority and thus present no obvious danger. And Liberals always hate their own first and most so it is just one more chance to presume to speak for a "minority" in order to hate their countrymen with a new, spicy relish. And they finally, after 50 years of open hostility to religion, get to appear on the side of the angels by defending a religion. It's more than passing strange but entirely consistent with them that it is islam, that opposes everything every liberal has ever said they believe, to support this one now. It's a counter-culture twofer.

Eric Cartman| 8.19.10 @ 11:43AM

Well, vtwin (his Big Wheel has dual cards on the wheels) , unlike you ahole Liberals, we understand that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. Also, unlike you Lefty aholes who have found a new friend in Wahhabi Islam and Sharia Law (is that because they teach hatred for the U.S.?), we understand this "community center" is really a jab in the eye towards us - a little victory dance which we are sure you Lefty punks love. We also understand you Lefty aholes trash our constitution on a regular basis so your blathering on about your love of it is meaningless. Punk.

Paevo| 8.19.10 @ 11:44AM

I, for one, am not at all afraid to say that I loathe Islam, and the more I know about it, the more I loaothe it. Doesn't mean I hate Muslims: after all, technically they have no choice but to be Muslims according to the tenets of their religion. It's moral relativist leftists like Vtwim who have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into believing that despising a religion (except Christianity!) constitutes some sort of thought crime....

Margie| 8.19.10 @ 3:25PM

"The LORD loves those who hate evil; he preserves the lives of his saints; he delivers them from the hand of the wicked." Ps. 97:10.

Excellent and truthful post, Paevo.

LC Johnson| 8.19.10 @ 6:41PM

The constitution does not protect a right to build a place of worship at any place of one's choice, absent any consideration of community sentiments in the affected locale. No one is demanding, or even asking that Muslims not practice their religion, although it may, and should, come to that as demands that America become more and more Shari'a regulated become more strident.

Peg| 8.19.10 @ 8:01PM

Well I for one am concerned about the influx of Muslims because I have six grandaughters that may have a difficult time enjoying the rights their grandmothers and mothers fought for them to have.
Islam does not have the same respect for women that the Judeo Christians who founded this country allowed us to carve out for women.
It is not hate I feel, but it is fear for a way of life I would like to pass on to future generations of American women.

Radegunda| 8.19.10 @ 9:40PM

How about looking around a little bit and seeing what Islam is doing to the world--to France, England, Sweden, Norway, Dearborn, Disneyland.

Wherever Muslims congregate in significant numbers (or even small numbers with cynical lawyers), they make things miserable for everyone else.

They also want to replace our Constitution with Allah's law.

BTW, why don't you take your case to all the planning and zoning commissions in all the cities around America, which routinely decree that a particular institution or structure won't go in a particular place because it just doesn't fit the planners' vision for the greater good. They don't need any more reason than that.

Anita| 8.19.10 @ 11:44AM

From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

drgene| 8.19.10 @ 2:10PM

Of course, because , in his heart of hearts, he still is the little mulatto in Indonesia at a madras chanting
Arabic verses from the Qur'an.

Once a Muslim, always a Muslim--that's Obama's
view, and the official view of all the sacred books of Islam!

Since the sacred books permit Isa(Jesus)to be the 27th Rasul(prophet), prior to and lesser than #28 Muhammad, Obama believes he can be simultaneously a Muslim and "Christian"--esp. since the bond that unites them is being "Black"or
"Brown" in race/skin.

Islam gives all real, truly advanced religions, a
bad name--much as evangelical & Black Liberation
disciples give real Christianity a bad name!!

Trust me, as a professor of religious studies for 40 years, I understand why so many educated have so little attraction to religion--when Islam and
racist or emotional-evangelical Christianity is the
dominant image in the MSM in the USA!

Jesus would weep at this! And he would reject
Muhammad's demeaning view of Jesus, and
superior view of himself(the final-greatest Prophet)!

RCV| 8.21.10 @ 12:54AM

The usual right-wing distortion.Here's the full quote in context:
"Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. "

Alan Brooks| 8.19.10 @ 3:42PM

The mosque should be built, to demonstrate how America allows the right of assembly, freedom of religion.

Radegunda| 8.19.10 @ 10:08PM

There are already mosques all over the country, including many in New York, demonstrating exactly that.

There are also planning commissions all over the country that regularly deny permission to build churches or businesses etc. in specific places just because the planner's don't want them there.

The Islamists are not going to be impressed by our "tolerance" if the building goes up. Au contraire, they'll see it as a sign of our weakness (which they hold in contempt), and as one more victory over the infidels, which will embolden them to press their jihad further.

Do you really know so little about Islam?

Bonsage| 8.19.10 @ 11:59PM

What an idiotic comment: America doesn't need to demonstrate it allows the right of assembly, freedom of religion or anything else - there are none so blind as those who cannot see what the USA has always been - a good and great country.

drudge ette obama| 8.19.10 @ 7:20AM

Where is Mellimelli and his conception cape when you need him? He could wrap it around Nancy Pelosi and cause her to take a federally-paid maternity leave.

Seriously, a nice bit of research in your article-thanks for the interesting read.

Appleby| 8.19.10 @ 7:39AM

Thomas Jefferson was an educated man, and he had a classical education that included history. The current frat boy incumbent has the skate-over grasp of history and the classical education generally of a college sophomore who has gingerly completed his Requirements and is now ready to forget most of them in his pursuit of a major in Gender Identity in Rock and Roll. Or *Political Science* that includes no reference to anything that happened before 1968.

The liberals who insisted that a Jeffersonian education be dumped in favour of the RELEVANT (which means turning university into a vocational school) are to blame, and their labours have brought forth Obama.

NOW do you understand why the rest of us thought this was a dumb idea?

CB| 8.19.10 @ 8:43AM

Wow....excellent piece....this should be required reading for everyone. It still amazes me how so many people have no idea what "separation between church and state" means, and how easily researched it is to find the facts.

Mark Shepler- Jupiter, FL| 8.19.10 @ 8:53AM

Excellent piece Mr. Neumayr but what I still want to know about that iftar toast is...Was Obama facing mecca? Sounds silly, I know, but libs are into symbolism and tip 'o the hat to multi-culti tics. Just wondering...

Daniel| 8.19.10 @ 9:07AM

"The First Amendment was designed to protect the majority from the tyranny of a religious minority favored by the federal government"

I guess I really am dense after all, because the above statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. Can someone out there please dicipher this for me?

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.19.10 @ 10:01AM

Daniel,
Hi!
Think of the "Church of England"...you know...who the Pilgrims fled from to a howling wilderness.

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.10 @ 10:27AM

Daniel, my boy,

When the Federal government decides that something should prevail; they can make it so.

The First Amendment states:
"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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

By preventing the Congress (and by Supreme Court extension, state and local governments) from making law to establish or prevent the practice of a religion we are hopefully protected from state imposed religion.

OK let's try a for instance. Say, for instance, that Nancy Pelosi suddenly converted to Scientology and then she decided that everybody in the country should benefit from her new- found faith. What would she probably do? She'd take out her big gavel and make the House pass a law saying that everybody had to go to Scientology Churches and give 10 percent of their income to the Church of Scientology, through federal payroll deductions. If she could somehow talk Harry Reid into making the Senate pass this, and then somehow dragoon or confuse Obama into signing the law, it would be done. Until, hopefully, the Supreme Court struck it down because of the text of the First Amendment.

Does this help? If not go back and sue your history and civics teachers, and toss in your English teachers for good measure.

And to everyone else, I DID NOT SAY ONE GOOD THING OR ONE BAD THING ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY. NOT ONE. NONE.

Don't try to read any thing into it, it ain't there. Don't have Tom Cruise call my office, keep him off of my couch. Just fuggedabowdit.

Good luck and keep working at it, Dan.

mbd| 8.19.10 @ 10:31AM

The First Amendment - as with all of the Bill of Rights - was adopted as a limitation on the power of the Federal Government. It was not applied to state action until after the adoption of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment with its due process clause. The protection of religious rights during the era of the Founding Fathers (this was the reference given by B.O. ) from state government action and the limitation on religious establishment by state governmental action - to the extent that it existed in this period - came primarily from state constitutional limitations. Thus, during this period, if a local majority wished to place limitations on religious activity or to promote it, it was free to do so without Federal interference acting on behalf of the non-majority.
Of course, federal and state constutional rights in this area are limitations on governmental action and not - at least directly - on private action.

PC destroys| 8.19.10 @ 11:19AM

"The First Amendment was designed to protect the majority from the tyranny of a religious minority favored by the federal government"

That designated design (above) to protect the majority is worded stupidly.

"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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment protects free thought, free belief, free speech, peaceful public discourse, and the right to demand that the government protect those RIGHTS of American citizens.

It protects ANY American from tyranny, which includes protection from religious tyranny. Whether those citizens protected from tyranny are a minority or majority is irrelevant. The Liberty to study, think and speak for yourself and enjoy peace by living accordingly is protected by the First Amendment.

Anthony| 8.19.10 @ 9:09AM

Yes, the hypocrisy of the One and the entire Left on this matter is stunning. The same Leftists who decry the obvious outrage over the insistance of this mosque at ground zero, as opposed to say, the Bronx, reveal their ugly truths.
The Left's favorite religion is Islam because it shares many of the same desires of the Left, i.e. the destruction of the West and America in particular. As a result, they perform all sorts of contortions in order to insist that the rest of us "chill out" and let Islam have its place in our society.
I can't wait to see, if during the upcoming Christmas and Hanukkah season, the rabid Left will now chill out a bit and allow menorahs and nativity scenes on public grounds, all in the name of these religions having their proper place in our society. Afterall, it's only for a few weeks, what's the big deal here?? And don't our public schools now have programs that celebrate Islam?
So please spare me the seperation of C & S b.s., that carnard is DOA. And besides, that language does not appear in the Constitution and only has become law of the land as a result of activist judges and the ACLU.
My point is, the Left's hyper aversion to any religion other than Islam, and its defense of all things pertaining to Islam, including cab drivers in the U.S.A., who won't take passengers with alcohol, betrays their true desires and intentions.
Islam and the Left are a perfect fit!

Vic| 8.19.10 @ 11:29PM

Oh they will be working together for a little while. But the beast who is controlled by the harlot will grow to hate her, and will strip her naked, and burn her with fire. Rev:18

Havoc| 8.19.10 @ 9:21AM

Perhaps, Obama was referring to the Iftar Dinner 'tradition' initiated by the mousy-quiet, islamophiliac, President G. W. Bush.

'Iftar Dinner' ... a menu for hurling.

Travis Bruce| 8.19.10 @ 9:32AM

Go back and learn your history. Thomas Jefferson agnostic? Sir, any person who would take the time to read Thomas Jefferson's personal journals would know you do not know your Founding Fathers. Please educate yourself.

JW| 8.19.10 @ 9:58AM

President Obama also had a Passover seder and a Hannuka candlelighting ceremony, and the traditional easter egg hunt in the White House lawn. I think he's politically trying to please all eveyone in some way, with the inevitable result of pleasing no one. He does not seem to be a church goer presently, he can't be a practicing Muslim if he doesn't fast on ramadan, drinks alcohol, hasn't had the W.H. chefs make only halal meat, etc. What puzzzles me however is why he wanted the religious symbols covered when he went to speak at Notre Dame.

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.10 @ 10:34AM

To a Christian, an Easter egg hunt is as meaningful as a Christmas tree. Which is they are recent, commercial additions to the two key events in a Christian's calendar.

Stack the Easter eggs and Christmas trees next to Obama's promotion and funding of abortion (murdering innocent babies inside their mothers' wombs) worldwide and the eggs and trees look pretty thin.

But I'm not clear on Allah's position on abortion. I wonder if Barry has explained that one to his buddies at his Iftar dinner...Anybody?

drgene| 8.19.10 @ 2:24PM

FYI:

ALLAH is SILENT about abortion--but Rejects Infanticide(which Obama advocated in Illinois).

The Shar'iah(in 4 versions) Condemns
abortion but as either manslaughter(liberals)
or murder(Hanbali of S Arabia). Obama
sees it merely a reproductive choice of a
woman--to gestate or not to gestate; to birth
or not to birth--not an act of manslaughter or murder.

So Obama is in harmony with neither the Qur'an
nor the Shari'ah. He's a Muslim only in his own
childhood and political wet-dreams.

It goes without saying, Jesus Rejects
abortion--the deliberate act of killing
an unborn, or unwanted born human being.

PC destroys| 8.19.10 @ 11:06AM

"What puzzzles me however is why he wanted the religious symbols covered when he went to speak at Notre Dame. "

Don't play coy. That wasn't a fluke. He demanded the same at Georgetown University, the nation's oldest Catholic and Jesuit university.

But of those instances, the most disgusting behavior was the official compliant complicity from the Catholic university presidents to divest themselves of their essence, acknowledging that Christian symbols are offensive in America.

Bonsage| 8.20.10 @ 12:02AM

...perhaps he burns in the presence of the cross?

howard lohmuller| 8.19.10 @ 10:32AM

Obama's tender treatment of Islam and denial of radical Islam coupled with his ignoring Christianity has many believing he is indeed a Muslim. More probably though, he is a Black Muslim, a mix of Black liberation philosophy as taught by Reverend Wright, Black separatism as taught by Nation Of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and Marxism which attaches itself
to both.

The Mosque affair has boiled over and brought Obama's beliefs to the forefront and will eventually bring unintended consequences regarding the races, most notably Hispanics.

Reading the mainstream media today, one would think Blacks and Hispanics are tightly knit supportive groups. They are not. Just as union leaders often have a different position than members, so Hispanics and Blacks whom vie with each other for jobs for the most part do not like each other.

The Mosque issue is going to eventually burn Obama's idea that Hispanics will vote for him because of his immigration stance and reelect him even as he loses the White vote.

drgene| 8.19.10 @ 2:32PM

My professional opinion, as a Religious Studies scholar, would be that Obama is schizophrenic:
a Black Liberation disciple of J Wright's (invalid)
Trinity United Church of Christ AND a Muslim(from his 2 childhoods & Muslim daddys)
who thinks Jesus is part of Islam--as the 27th lesser Prophet who preceded Muhammad(#28).

I seriously doubt his allegiance to the Nation of Islam/Black Muslims in America. He has political
empathy for their racist views on Jews/rich and
Christians as oppressors of US Black, and he
thinks Blacks are a superior race to whites(but
he's only 50% Black), but does NOT seek a
Nation of Black Islam somewhere within the 50 states. He wants all of the USA to be like him--
a schizophrenic Muslim-Christian.

Anthony| 8.19.10 @ 8:13PM

With all due respect, Obama is not schizophrenic as to his religious beliefs. What he is, is a cunning, calculating political hack, who used "Christianity" as a political ploy.
I firmly believe Obama considers himself a Muslim, just connect the dots as to his behavior and his comments.
He had a burning desire for high political office and he knew that being a practicing Muslim, in a post 9/11 world, would not sit well with many voters.
What Obama then did was join a black liberation theology "Christian" church, which accomplished two essential goals, 1) allowed him to participate in a "Christian " church that enforced many of his rabid anti-American views and 2) gave him street "cred" with the Chicago black community for his political future, by joining Wright's church.
Obama can call himself a Christian all day long; the proof, as they say, are in his actions, words and deeds, which all point to Mecca.

PC destroys| 8.19.10 @ 10:48AM

Obama's statement that Islam has always been a significant part of America was entirely out of line. He spoke stupidly at his Iftar Dinner this year. What all happened in the White House last year? It seems Obama celebrated Ramadan then as well.

Nonetheless, it was GWB in 2005 who hosted his fifth Iftar White House Dinner, with three more to consider before leaving office. So, again, Obama is carrying on Bush's torch, though with Obama's own disgusting un-American twisted "understanding" that emphatically lacks gestalt.

...quoted from the record:

US Embassy Islamabad, Pakistan
http://islamabad.usembassy.gov.....01901.html

President Bush Hosts Iftar Dinner At White House
10/19/2005

(President cites "spirit," "compassion" of Islam at gathering)

Hosting his fifth Iftar dinner October 17 at the White House, President Bush spoke of the spirit and compassion of Islam and thanked the Muslims nations that have joined the coalition in the War on Terror.

PC destroys| 8.19.10 @ 11:00AM

howard lohmuller

Yes. And to his "mongrel" ideological concoction, don't ignore the anti-American streak from Indonesia which readily exploits our tax funded humanitarian aid with antipathy for Americans.

He was raised Muslim at least until relocated to his grandparents in Hawaii. He returned as an adult to dress in Muslim regalia to participate in religious ceremony. That photo made the rounds during the campaign. His campaign accepted immense funding from Libya's Qaddafi who proclaimed his generous financial support for Obama the Muslim in public al Jazeera broadcast, available online during the campaign.

Ryan| 8.19.10 @ 1:00PM

Ummm...you DO realize Qaddafi is insane, right?

Bonsage| 8.20.10 @ 12:04AM

...and so are the voters who elected Obama, particularly those who continue to support him.

Louis Jenkins| 8.19.10 @ 11:01AM

I've never really considered the separation of church and state, or the joining of the two, as an issue that needs to be addressed by our government. But liberals today have an extremely hard time with it. First they want to separate the two, then Obama wants to place it high on his priority list by speaking of Constitutional rights, and now the Democrats scramble for cover. Obama has strove to look like Solomon, but all he has done is look like an idiot.

Mr. Rolf| 8.19.10 @ 11:32AM

Good Lord, this is getting nuts. The Ground Zero affair has nothing to do with the First Amendment--absolutely NOTHING. You own it? Complied with all municipal zonig laws and such? Then you can build pretty much whatever the hell (the Christian hell, I assume) you want.

The issue is, and has always been, one of taste. Of tact, and sensitivity,. A mosque at GZ is tacky. The issue is that it cannot be built, but that the builders ought to have the good taste to choose not to.

Which they don't.

Steve A| 8.19.10 @ 11:39AM

Sigh, OK. Who the hell is saying they have no legal right to build the freakin Mosque?? Answer, NOBODY. So you can slelve your separation of church & state & Constitutionality discussion. All it is doing is covering your defense of the construction of an site that would be viewed by a vast majority of common sense Americans as offensive to the memory of those who perished on 9/11. This Imam is clearly no moderate, the proposed project is clearly an attempt to offend. Not too tough to figure out.

John Galt | 8.19.10 @ 12:37PM

re "Jefferson was an arrogant secularist in embryo (the type on display now who dislikes all religions save Islam)"

I'm not sure that this is accurate, and I'm pretty damn well sure it wasn't necessary within the context of what you're writing.

There are many, MANY of us who are agnostic or atheist who truly love America, truly know our history, truly appreciate the incredible life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that our Constitution gives us who also believe that there simply is no "higher power", at least as organized religions have framed it. You -- the conservatives, libertarians, and Constitutional historians -- who long for (and act for) a return to the USA that the Founding Fathers created, should embrace us. We think like you in terms of the Constitution, property rights, individual rights, limited federal government, strong state government, and freedom from totalitarianism, but we also think that the idea of a glowing, all-knowing, superhero in the sky is a bit silly in the face of modern science and society.
Christians have the Bible. We have Atlas Shrugged. I would also recommend "Letters to a Christian Nation".

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that preaching from the pulpit will not help the movement back toward a free United States of America. You need us; we need you.

Vic| 8.20.10 @ 12:09AM

Agreed. Respect for the natural law of man should be our rally point. Freedom of conscience for all. Theology need not be involved.

http://mises.org/daily/2426

Ryan| 8.20.10 @ 10:00AM

If there is no God or He doesn't care, what does natural law matter?

Nancy in NC| 8.19.10 @ 1:34PM

I must disagree with the writers' contention that Jefferson was an agnostic. That idea seems to be in vogue, but there is much evidence that it's not the case.

The progressives love to paint the Founders in an unpleasant light to further their own agenda, but their own words defy their rewriting of history. Jefferson often signed correspondence, "In Christ"...just doesn't sound very agnostic to me.

RCV| 8.19.10 @ 1:57PM

Jefferson was an admirer of Christ, but no orthodox Christian. He once said of the New Testament: "The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."
(Letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, January 24, 1814.) Of the Book of Revelations, he wrote: "It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly dreams."
(Letter of Thomas Jefferson to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825.)

Jefferson believed Christ to have been a great Jewish reformer, but not divine.

Margie| 8.19.10 @ 2:46PM

RCV,

She didn't SAY he was an Orthodox Christian. If he signed his letters with, "In Christ," what does that tell you? Why would an agnostic bother to do that? Answer: He would not!

RCV| 8.19.10 @ 4:30PM

He was not an agnostic, and I never said he was. He was a Deist, but did not believe that Christ was God.

GW| 8.19.10 @ 9:47PM

It's the book of Revelation. No "s" at the end.

RCV| 8.19.10 @ 9:56PM

Or, to be even more precise, The Revelation to John. Thanks!

Margie| 8.20.10 @ 2:06PM

RCV,

You say he was a Diest. Prove it. I do not know "what he was." It seemed to me like he was seeking the Truth. He didn't want to get entangled in false doctrine whether it be Catholic or whatever. My point was (and I didn't say YOU called him an agnostic, I was responding to both above posts when making my comment, earlier)~ my point was that if he signed his letters with "in Christ" it showed where his heart was at. And God looks at the heart. How do I know this? Because the Bible says so.

" ..for the LORD sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart." 1 Sam. 16:7.

RCV| 8.20.10 @ 2:23PM

There are entire books in my library on Jefferson's theology. He thought Jesus to be the greatest philospher of all times, a wise Jewish teacher. Jefferson believed in a Creator who did not intervene in the world. He believed in reason, not faith: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." (1787, Letter to Peter Carr). As he wrote to John Adams, "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

Margie| 8.20.10 @ 3:07PM

The first quote is fine. And he said blindfolded fear, not faith. Why is it that you insist on twisting his words? Do you have a problem with using reason as opposed to blindfolded fear? Perhaps you do as you worship Obama and his anti-American policies for this country. You find Thomas Jefferson ungodly but you find Obama a good man and one who deserves listening to?

Seems to me and I'll say it again, that Jefferson was no fan of Catholic doctrine. And I'm right there with him. Please~ provide more quotes from this man, they are quite enjoyable

And it seems to me he is referring to the Catholic doctrine concerning Mary when he refers to the "mystical" generation. Sounds to me like he rejected the entire worship of Mary as "the Mother of God." Which is unBiblical. God has no Mother.

More quotes, please!

RCV| 8.20.10 @ 7:36PM

Margie - I'm not "twisting" his words - I'm quoting them! I hardly find Jefferson "ungodly"; quite the contrary. Please do your own reading. To me Jefferson is the greatest of our founders, and amazing thinker. And I'm past trying to address your baseless slurs of our good President. He is a fine, decent, admirable person and a great admirer of Jefferson as well. You can continue to stew and foment all you want against your favorite demons, the Catholic Church, "leftists" (i.e., anyone who doesn't agree with you), Libertarians, Muslims, and Obama.

Margie| 8.20.10 @ 10:25PM

You misquoted him when you said he said "blindfolded faith." He didn't say that, he said "blindfolded fear."

Typical Leftist response. If you don't like the truth being pointed out, accuse the person of hate and demonization.

Catholic doctrine is full of lies.
Leftists are full of lies.
And yes, that doesn't agree with me, because it doesn't agree with God.

RCV| 8.20.10 @ 10:58PM

You're about the smuggest person I've encountered, so sure of what you think God wants - the very antithesis of Jefferson's open, rational, questioning mind. You are indeed in the party you belong in, Miss Margie, but your philosophy has little to do with freedom or love. I know a hundred Catholics closer to Jesus's teachings than you will ever hope to be in your narrow-mindedness.

Margie| 8.21.10 @ 11:58AM

"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few." Mt. 7:13 & 14.

Smug in your eyes. It only matters to me what He thinks. And once again, I don't speak of individuas but of false doctrine. And in the case of Liberalism, the doctrines.

Margie| 8.20.10 @ 2:19PM

RCV,

p.s. To the unenlightened man the book of Revelation does appear to be written by a maniac. But to one who has been "regenerated from above" (John 3:3), it is the power of God to those who are being saved. (1 Cor. 1:18).

God Himself is in control of the hearts and minds of human beings. Perhaps the Christ who he signed his letters by understood what he meant toward Him!

RCV| 8.20.10 @ 2:52PM

I have no doubt that He did understand, and that He loves and holds Jefferson to Him. The Jesus I know is not so vain as to disdain someone as good as Jefferson, who used the fine mind God gave him to question, explore and postulate.

Margie| 8.20.10 @ 3:13PM

So let's not paint him in an anti-Christ kind of way, then. It sounds to me like he was more real than a lot of so called Religious leaders of today. And if you really, truly and honestly study his words, they reveal a man seeking the Truth.

After all, who could a untruthful man write the Declaration of Independence, which is the truth and which some have called the Universal truth. Who spoke of Man, God and Inalieable Rights.

Nick| 8.20.10 @ 12:52AM

RCV,

Yes, Mr. Jefferson became quite senile in his old age. Why else would he write such drivel?

But, in his youth, at the time of the Declaration and the War for Independence, he was a Christian. Jefferson was a victim of the so-called enlightenment.

RCV| 8.20.10 @ 11:44AM

Nick - While Jefferson followed the trappings of Anglicanism, in his private writings he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity as early as 1788. It may be comforting, but not entirely accurate, to write off his apostasy to senility.While I would hardly call him a "victim", he was certainly a child of the enlightenment.

Margie| 8.20.10 @ 1:57PM

FYI~ There is no "Trinity" mentioned in the Bible. Not once. Jefferson was being Biblical and more honest than some then, by rejecting it.

It is Catholic doctrine. Nothing more, nothing less.

RCV| 8.20.10 @ 2:13PM

Margie: Stick to things you know about, which plainly does not include Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson termed the virgin birth "mythical". He thought the Bible "wholly unreliable" and produced his own version of the New Testament, which included only the teachings of Jesus and left out anything that suggest he was divine.

RCV| 8.20.10 @ 2:15PM

As for the Trinity, it is simply shorthand for referring to God the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus, the Son. Do you not believe in any of the three? Do you believe they are separate, wholly distinct beings (i.e., are you a polytheist?)? Or are you simply being snide about Catholics?

Margie| 8.20.10 @ 2:27PM

I am simply saying that you are trying to paint Jefferson in a certain light~ one that fits with your thought processes, which are Leftist. You have no idea of what you speak when it comes to reality therefore. As one who worships at the fett of the first anti-American President, I would no more consider your opinion of one of our greatest Founding Fathers and his relationship with God than I would consider it in terms of who should be our next President.

And I don't believe in doctrine that isn't Biblical.

RCV| 8.20.10 @ 2:49PM

Jefferson was indeed one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest, of a remarkable group of young men who were our founders. I wouldn't expect you to take my opinions about him for a minute, but I do encourage you to read as much of his writings as possible - they are well worth time and effort.

You still didn't answer my questions on the Father, Holy Spirit and Son. I'm just trying to understand what it is about the concept of the Trinity you find as unbiblical. Do you think there is no Holy Spirit? Do you think that Jesus and God are not one being? Do you think there are three Gods? I really am interested to know.

Margie| 8.20.10 @ 3:28PM

RCV,

Separate yet One. You try and explain it. I can't. I am saying that I choose to not use terms that are unBiblical and since there is no such thing as "The Holy Trinity" in the Bible, I reject it. It isn't necessary for any Christian to accept it, therefore.

I choose to actually read the Bible for myself and take His words as His words. I won't be painted into any corner by any man or Religion. Therefore when Jesus says, "I and the Father are One." I believe it. Where the Bible refers to Jesus as the Son of God, I accept that. Separate, yet One. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit is "the Comforter" sent at Pentecost to fill the Apostles and disciples, and all who come to Christ to this day, and thus Christianity was born.

If the Bible says each is individual, yet One, that is how I will take it. There is no "Holy Trinity" mentioned in the Bible. So why add it?

"Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Prov. 30:5 & 6.

RCV| 8.20.10 @ 4:18PM

Then you have no disagreement on concept, just the term. Understood.

RCV| 8.20.10 @ 4:20PM

BTW, the concept has always been the hardest one for the human mind - certainly mine - to get one's hand's around and truly understand, let alone explain. I think that's probably why the old church fathers liked the term -- it avoided having to explain it!

Margie| 8.20.10 @ 10:13PM

No, I do reject the concept. Because nowhere in the Bible does it say we should worship the Holy Spirit. There is no noun, "Holy Trinity" in the Bible. Not there. It says we are to worship God through Christ, by the Holy Spirit, which He refers to as the Comforter, which He gives to all who receive Him. Jesus said He and the Father are One. That is all.

Since there is no such thing as a Holy Trinity according to the Bible, it isn't God's will to make it up.

RCV| 8.20.10 @ 11:05PM

Either you're a polytheist then, or your theology is simply incoherent.

Margie| 8.21.10 @ 12:00PM

I'm what you call Biblical.

Margie| 8.21.10 @ 12:11PM

RCV,

I am an honest ruined sinner saved by Grace. I only willagree with what's written in the Bible. The Holy Trinity isn't in there and so I reject it.

If you want to have the mind of Christ then you have to go according to His words and not the doctrines of men.

That's what I choose and will always choose. Each person has to choose whether or not they want to be Biblical or not.

Margie| 8.21.10 @ 12:26PM

"Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Prov. 30:5&6.

Margie| 8.21.10 @ 12:37PM

p.p.s. RCV, BTW I don't dislike you. You've had some decent discourse with me here and there. I can tell that you are a Patriot. I've seen how you've written about the Constitution and your love of it. Yes, though you think like Obama I still will say it. My Father is also a lifelong Democrat. He is also a true Patriot. I regocnize it in him, and in you. I think you're thinking is all wrong, and I hope you come around one day~ to the Right way of thinking, but you remind me of my Dad. Although even he doesn't like Obama, and he will vote for a Republican President now and then. See? There's hope!

God bless you, RCV.

RCV| 8.21.10 @ 4:26PM

And God bless you, Margie. You remind me of my brother, who is a minister in a Bible-centered church. Every now and then he votes for a Democrat ... though not often.

GrungyOldVan| 8.19.10 @ 2:11PM

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agen.....1_26.shtml
Sounds like Progressivism... Right?
It's more than that...

Agenda 21 is written in such a way as to make interpretation by Sharia possible...

Ok, now replace indigenous with muslim... You can do this because as a muslim you believe that EVERYBODY IS MUSLIM SINCE ADAM AND EVE... That means anywhere muslims go they are considered indigenous for UN Agenda 21 purposes. Think of the implications of Agenda 21 and the last 30 years... Do you see a pattern happening with the two 'Green' agendas we are in a life and death grapple with right now?

Remember those key words being repeated over and over... Local laws and standards...

You wanted it you've got it... The reason the Progressives love the muslims and care so deeply at the moment about laws and regulations is to FORCE smaller carbon foot prints... No greater retrograde force exists in this world...
Prince Charles has revealed the link with his praise of islam as a 'Green' religion we should all look to for enviro-love...

Why do you think muslims are being spread evenly through America by foreign interests?

What is the only acceptable way to cull a population? Let them war amongst themselves...

If you don't believe me.. Consider that Cap and Tax is really just global Jizya... Remember who stands to gain from that kind of money transfer...

One of the most intolerant muslim nations is the Maldives... Funny how they aren't under any threat of being flooded...

DRed| 8.19.10 @ 2:21PM

Al Gore is a pimp . . . but I didn't know until this day that it was the Maldives all along

Margie| 8.19.10 @ 2:41PM

"Had George W. Bush held a rosary and modest fish dinner at the White House to mark the beginning of Lent, the ACLU left would have freaked out. But these same secularists didn't mind Barack's "Iftar dinner" last Friday night."

That's right because ideology trumps reality with the Left.

Obama's never observed the National day of prayer, yet he celebrates Ramadan not as a private citizen but as the President of the United States. Making him our first Muslim President. If not in fact, then in deed.

DRed| 8.19.10 @ 2:53PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....03544.html

DRed| 8.19.10 @ 2:55PM

http://tiny.cc/gm1e3

Margie| 8.19.10 @ 3:46PM

Read the whole write up, Red? He's never attended.

It also said this, "Also unhappy is 2010 National Day of Prayer Task Force honorary chairman Franklin Graham, who was disinvited from a Pentagon National Day of Prayer service over his comments that Muslims are "enslaved" by Islam, which he had called "a very evil and wicked religion." Graham is reportedly standing outside the Pentagon in protest of the disinvitation today.."

DRed| 8.19.10 @ 4:16PM

Maybe he observed it privately. I didn't realize there was an actual event. It's an interfaith event, right? So, Obama's not going proves-what?

Considering that there are muslims serving in our military, I can see why the Pentagon wouldn't want someone who says Islam is a wicked religion coming to a prayer day in the Pentagon.

Vic| 8.19.10 @ 11:47PM

Having bound the wounds of Islam's victims for the last 15 years through Samaritans purse, I suppose he speaks from experience.

RCV| 8.19.10 @ 4:28PM

Your friend George W had an Iftar dinner in the White House as well.

Radegunda| 8.19.10 @ 10:50PM

And he was wrong to do it.

When did "George W did it" become a defense in your book?

RCV| 8.20.10 @ 1:59PM

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Margie| 8.21.10 @ 12:18PM

RCV,

GW isn't my friend but if he asked me to be his friend I'd be honored.

RCV| 8.21.10 @ 4:24PM

As would I. And I admired his outreach to the American Muslim community very much, including his Iftar dinner and the Eid postage stamps his administration put out. A true Christian.

Boston12GS| 8.19.10 @ 2:43PM

I say let 'em build it there. Even better, let them buld it directly on the center of ground zero.

Listen, they're doing us a favor. But for this kind of "in your face activism" on their part the American people might forget that we're at war with many millions of extremists who would have no greater joy that to put our children to the torch.

I thank them for being so politically simplistic as to keep alive American's memory of what they have done to our helpless, innocent victims, and for what reason (jihad).

Americans have never fled from a fair fight in their national history, and we won't flee from this one--so long as we're smart enough to know we're in a fight to being with.

The construction of this "mosque" at the site of 9/11 only ensures that we won't collectively forget.

Thanks, imam! :-)

Jonathon| 8.19.10 @ 2:49PM

You all are hilarious...

Boston12GS| 8.19.10 @ 3:15PM

ALL of us? Really? Shucks, thanks. [blush]

mijattarab| 8.19.10 @ 2:57PM

My Savior, Jesus Christ, died for my sins; their prophet, Mohammed (PB and J), wants them to murder for his...

David| 8.19.10 @ 3:28PM

John Galt, the order in the world, and the magnificence of our bodies and minds, all point to an intelligent creator of the universe. It takes more faith for you to believe it all happened by accident that it does for us to believe God made it all. Archaeological finds completely support the Biblical account of history.

Sure John, we can all get along and tolerate each other. The problem is that too many atheists and ACLU types want to remove all mention of God and the name of Jesus from public life. They constantly sue over the smallest of things. Your side is intolerant, period. You don't see Christians running around using the government to stop you from doing this or that.

It is a real problem for Christian believers when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules that it is NOT unsconstitional for California students to be required to take a four week course in Islam, dress like Muslims, and read and study verses from the Koran. Why is it a problem? Because the same court ruled that it IS unconstitutional for Christian athletes and their coaches to voluntarily pray before or after football games.

Do you see any problem with those court decisions, John? That type of crap happens every day.

As to the mosque, as I heard someone say, other private property owners next to the proposed mosque should open a gay bar. I suggest a strip club, or maybe a dog kennel, or a butcher shop that specializes in pork. See how they feel about that. But they would have to build it CLOSE to the mosque so some fanatic can't blow-up the business without also damaging the mosque. I would love to see Obama explain why the mosque is okay but those other businesses in the vicinity would not be okay. After all, it is private property, we have the first amendment, and as he so arrogantly educated us, "this is America".

Joe D.| 8.19.10 @ 4:17PM

George, this time you are wrong. Jefferson may have been a Deist. But was not agnostic. His writing bear that out. Example "We are endowed by our Creator with certain rights, etc."

dw| 8.19.10 @ 4:25PM

I just plain do not trust these imans and in particular this iman who would control this mosque. Now to all the peaceful muslims out there the question is, if you witnessed or were subjected to radical preachings would you report it to the proper authorities and in doing so reject that kind of violent messaging. Unfortunately I am not sure that would happen given the intimidation potential that can be brought by the radicals who are predisposed to actual violence.

Joe D.| 8.19.10 @ 4:31PM

vtwin, you sound like a liberal which means you are off your rocker most of the time. However, this time you are dead wrong and George is right. The constitution was written to restict the Federal Government, not the states. They have a right if they feel the mosque should not be build on where there brothern killed 3,ooo. It does not prevent the free exerise in anyway.

Dirt| 8.19.10 @ 5:51PM

The political left sceech seperation of Church and State and then the State Department funds a Islamic Supremacist's trip around Muslim lands. Sure seperation of Church and State is hunky dory as long as Islam is excluded from the lists of religions.

Modern Liberals alla Demorats want no seperation of state and it's people like good socialists they think the state should control us, Islam believes in no seperation of state and religion ala Sharia Law. Both are groups are extremists who want to control society and both groups think they can control the other should one group succeed. England and Europe has shown us the Islamic Supremacists win each and every battle and eventually the leftards are left groveling on the ground eating crumbs.

Wahhabi Islam is a political ideology, and should not be afforded with Relgious Status it's akin to Nazism.

Pete| 8.19.10 @ 7:00PM

I read a quote the other day from the turbanite trying to build the mosque in which he made it clear that he assigns blame to the US for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. This is where he, Obama, and progressives are in perfect agreement.

John DuBose| 8.19.10 @ 9:27PM

If a group of muslims had done all the appropriate
local paper work, then we can not do anything about their mosque. But at least the president should call out all the muslim countries that will not grant the same basic right to its non-moslem
citizens.

With the magnificent pulpit or the presidency, he could. Calling the bastards of hard core muslim nations out would show he had at least a small pair.

I am not holding my breath.

Marc Jeric| 8.19.10 @ 10:27PM

Every mosque has a muezzin; also 4 loudspeakers on its roof; 5 times a day the muezzin shouts " Allahu Akbar!" to the 4 sides of the world. The echoes reverberate in the Ground Zero hole, glorifying the victory of the 19 jihadi martyrs.

Bonsage| 8.20.10 @ 12:09AM

How tall is this proposed mosque - is it likely to be hit by a stray airliner once built?

RCV| 8.20.10 @ 11:29AM

This isn't a mosque, no matter how many times you guys keep calling it that. It's a community center, with a gym and prayer rooms, but no muezzin and no minaret and no loudspeakers.

out-of-towner| 8.19.10 @ 11:12PM

Someone said to me today, "Christian/Muslim - so what if he is a Muslim? What's wrong with being a Muslim?" I said,"Nothing is wrong with being a Muslim. Unless you are one bent on destroying high rise building full of people with an airplane full of people. Something is wrong somewhere in the head of a Muslim, lying about being a Muslim in order to get elected President of the United States. "

On the other hand, why would we be shocked if he were a Muslim claiming to be a Christian? This is a man who will not furnish proof of his birthplace, will not release his college records. And even lies about quitting smoking.

S&W M&P| 8.20.10 @ 12:07AM

Can anyone tell me why our President's wife has not traveled with to any Muslim country that follows Sharia law?

S&W M&P| 8.20.10 @ 12:08AM

Sorry, traveled with HIM to...

Joseph | 8.20.10 @ 1:36AM

It's amazing to me how liberals whether they be Rep. or Dem. will invoke the constitution when it is convenient for them. Nancy pew losi really took the cake when she called for an investigation into those who oppose the ground zero mosque. Our POTUS invokes the constitution in defense of his behind closed doors pork chop eating ramadan buddies. While he fails to secure our boarders and protect us from gun toting drug cartels. Joe Scarborough totally disappointed me with his leftist rants about ground zero mosque. And I thought Sean Hannity hammered the obamination too much. Well after pewlosi's rocket scientist statement and obamination's late night pork chop snack trist. I say the heck with the tea break out the Tar and Feathers Sean

North Fannin County Redneck | 8.20.10 @ 1:43AM

Long time lurker, first time poster. Here's my take: The Constitution allows for American flag burning also. But, try it in my front yard Hoss, and I will stomp a mudhole in your a@# and then walk it dry..... provided there's anything left of ya after I stand in line behind my wife and veteran youngest son and they are done with you.

Joseph | 8.20.10 @ 1:46AM

O= One
B= Bad
A= A$$
M=Mistake
A= America
The experiment failed lets get up, shake ourselves off and take care of it in Nov.2010 & 2012

Joseph | 8.20.10 @ 1:46AM

O= One
B= Bad
A= A$$
M=Mistake
A= America
The experiment failed lets get up, shake ourselves off and take care of it in Nov.2010 & 2012

FeralCat| 8.20.10 @ 3:14AM

Should we even be calling Islam a religion?

Calling Islam a religion is rather absurd if you stop and think about it for a moment. A Chrysler has a transmission component to it but you don’t call a Chrysler a transmission; you call it a car. A Chrysler has a radio component to it but you don’t call a Chrysler a radio; you call it a car. I am 1/8 Swedish but people don't call me Swede. People don't say, "Oh look, Swede is getting into his radio and driving away." Likewise, Islam has a religious component to it, but with Islam the religious component is only one of many components [theological, political, social, judicial, military, etc], and NOT the most important component at all as the MOST important component can be summed up as DOMINATION OR ELSE, so Islam should properly be called a Totalitarian System, not a religion. This is so simple. It’s logic 101. Nazism, another Totalitarian System, had a religious component to it too, albeit one arguably smaller than Islam, but I have never heard anyone call it a religion. Winston Churchill even equated Islam and Nazism, when in his book The Gathering Storm he equated Hitler's Mein Kampf with Mohammad's Koran.

Religion is just a skirt, or burka if you will, that the Totalitarianism that is Islam hides it's evil [women stonings, honor killings, gay hangings, 100 lashes, etc ad nauseam] behind. That skirt should be pulled off. Totalitarianism should not be allowed to hide behind religion.

Islam is a more totalitarian system than even Nazism was. Think about it. The Nazis mainly left woman alone. Men weren’t told whether to wear a beard or how many times to pray and in what direction. They didn’t much care about peoples sex lives. They wanted to take over Europe but not the world. Islam wants to control all aspects of life and wants to take over the whole world.

Margie| 8.20.10 @ 1:11PM

Wait a minute. It actually sounds like you are saying Nazism was good compared. Yeah the Nazis left women alone. Except when they were raping them and murdering them. And men weren't told how to wear their hair but they were murdered for not being Nazis. The same concerning everything else. And if they didn't want to take over the world they wouldn't have been aligned with Japan who also wanted to take over the world. Not to mention Stalin was in competition with Hitler to do same, and they were even aligned at one time.

You wouldn't happen to be a White Nationalist, would you? They seem to be held in high regard around these parts.

FeralCat| 8.20.10 @ 2:18PM

I had thought about adding this to the bottom of my comment, but did not as I doubted anyone commenting on this blog would be as dumb as you.

(and please, don't any mental 5 year old say, "Oh look mommy, the bad man is defending Nazism")

Margie| 8.20.10 @ 3:33PM

And somehow I knew you'd come back with that type of retort. However, you didn't answer my question. And you WERE defending it.
Basically you lied when you defended them as well. I spoke to that.

FeralCat| 8.20.10 @ 3:24AM

"While it is true that the basically agnostic Jefferson was an arrogant secularist in embryo (the type on display now who dislikes all religions save Islam)"

Such Jefferson hatred is astounding.

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
- Thomas Jefferson

If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
- John F. Kennedy (to a large group of scholars gathered at a White House dinner)

Margie| 8.20.10 @ 11:42AM

People love to use the Founding Fathers of our country to try and suit their own leanings but when you read their words for yourself they are so clear as to show where they were at.
Much like people try and use the Bible to suit their own leanings but when one reads it for themselves there is no question as to what God is saying to us.

"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.." 1 Cor, 14:33.

FeralCat| 8.20.10 @ 3:32AM

If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet, they could do us in. When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Well, I've spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the 'Old Conservatism.' And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength. Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers?

The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, less the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. We have succeeded for over 200 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.

Ever good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell right in the a$$.
- Barry Goldwater

Margie| 8.20.10 @ 11:35AM

Wow. If this is how Barry Goldwater thought then he is right up there along with the Left. This is what you hear out of their mouths today. The Left is in dread of Christians not because they threaten to "take over" and ruin our form of government, but because they themselves are immoral.

This sounded exactly like that old poster who we see no more around here~ good old "Bob." This is the precise phony baloney argument he used to put forth. It is also the same phony argument put forth by today's Libertarians.

The whole phony separation of of church and state and trying to use it against Christianity and Christians when it truly has to do with the government not setting up a Religion over its people.

If you fear Pat Robertson you've got some serious problems going on. And instead you ought to be fearing what the godless Leftists are doing to this country. I'm not a fan of his and don't go for televangelists at all but fearing a take down of America or a take over by Christians in the party is laughable. Ronald Reagan was a better example to look to for an example of what a conservative Christian would do politically. And there was nothing to fear about him either.

Barry Goldwater had a problem. And it seemed to be with his Maker, judging by that blather. The truth is, you cannot have a republican form of government unless its people are a moral people. Those who want anarchy would also subscribe to Goldwater's philosophy from what I have heard. What a bunch of bunk.

Yosemeti Sam| 8.20.10 @ 3:42AM

The First Commandment versus The First Amendment.

Polly| 8.20.10 @ 12:44PM

'Madam' Nancy Pelosi's Brothel

The real 'Madam' in Washington DeCeased wants to investigate law-abiding citizens who oppose the Ground Zero mosque!
This is Pelosi's way to muddy the waters and draw attention away from her Marxist comrades with their criminal bent.
But what she really wants to divert attention away from is the wide-open sex brothel she's been protecting in her San Francisco district!
Think I'm kidding? Just Google "Madam Nancy Pelosi's brothel district" which is in the latest version of "Imam Bloomberg's Sharia Mosque."
Nancy reminds us of an Egyptian travel poster: SEE NILE! But there's actually nothing wrong with her appearance that a 10-point earthquake couldn't fix!

A Kansas Patriot (who won FIRST PLACE in a nationwide Americanism Essay Contest !)

[caught the above via the net!]

jobx| 8.21.10 @ 11:45AM

Click on:
http://www.muslimfamilyday.com/

Scroll down to "Online Buzz" and click on "Muslim Family Day at Six Flag Park, 'A Phenomenal Success'. Review the site, especially the header.

Enough said.

Michele San Pietro| 8.22.10 @ 5:37PM

Islamophilia should be declared a crime in the United States.

More Articles by George Neumayr

More Articles From Special Report

Tornado Chasers

May 24, 2013 | Claire Healey

The Inoperative Jay Carney

May 23, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Disabling American Sovereignty

May 22, 2013 | Iain Murray & Geoffrey McLatchey

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

May 21, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

May 20, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/19/the-separation-of-islamophilia

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|44 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|58 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|89 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|33 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|25 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 10:45AM

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 5.24.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

Most Popular Articles

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.23.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

Lerner's Plea

Ray V. Hartwell | 5.23.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer | 5.23.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.