The Myth Of Jefferson’s Koran

By
January 3, 2007

Allah thinks Ellison’s shrewd political move of taking his private oath on a Thomas Jefferson owned copy of the Koran is checkmate. But not so fast. I see Allah has it in an update. But let’s look at even more of the picture, while not forgetting that Jefferson owned a slave or two, as well. Is Ellison planing on swearing in on one of them, too? And if so, what religion do you think he or she would be?

Jefferson purchased the Koran as a student prior to his even taking the bar exam and after reading another book said to be prejudiced against Islam. And the notion I suspect you’ll hear repeated by the MSM, that Jefferson used the Koran to gain insight into the law, appears to be pure academic speculation with a certain anti-theist sounding slant.

The article relates the interest shown by former U.S. president Thomas Jefferson in studying Islam and his reading of the Koran. On Jefferson’s visit to the printing office of the Virginia Gazette in the autumn of 1765, he purchased a copy of the Qur’an, specifically, George Sale’s English translation, The Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mohammed. Jefferson’s purchase of the Qur’an at the time may have been inspired by his legal studies, too. The interest in natural law he developed as a student encouraged him to pursue his readings in the area as widely as possible. The standard work in the field, Frieherr von Pufendorf’s Of the Law and Nature and Nations, gave readers an almost endless number of possible references to track down and thus offered Jefferson an excellent guide to further reading. Though Pufendorf’s work reflects a prejudice against Islam characteristic of the time in which it was written, he nonetheless cited precedent from the Qur’an in several instances. Jefferson acquired his Qur’an not long after the injustice of the Stamp Act had forced him to question seriously the heritage of English constitutional law and to seek ultimate answers in the ideas of natural law and natural rights. Reading the Qur’an also let him continue studying the history of religion. Entries he made in his literary commonplace book about the same time he purchased Sale’s Koran show that he was seeking to reconcile contradictions between history and scripture that were becoming increasingly apparent to him.

The reality is, as Allah now points out and I had planned to post via NRO, is that Jefferson waged war against Islam … long after having read their book. And he went against his prior beliefs of a small coastal-restricted Navy in doing so.

Even after it became commonplace for the pirate captains or their crew to be renegade Europeans, it was essential that these former Christians “turn Turk” and convert to Islam before they could be accorded the honor of engagement in al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea.

In fact, the peoples of Barbary continued to consider the pirates as holy warriors even after the Barbary rulers began to allow non-religious commitments to command their strategic use of piracy. The changes that the religious institution of piracy underwent were natural, if pathological. Just as the concept of jihad is invoked by Muslim terrorists today to legitimize suicide bombings of noncombatants for political gain, so too al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, served as the cornerstone of the Barbary states’ interaction with Christendom.

As Jefferson reported to the Continental Congress:

These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. Robert says:

    I hope you don’t make this much of a stink (see mountains out of molehills) when I use “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” at my swearing-in ceremony.
    Future Senator Robert

  2. Thomas says:

    It’s not as if he was taking an oath of fealty to Ibn Saud. He’s vowing to protect the constitution, etc. It just happens that his Muslim right hand will be on the Muslim holy book. How is that offensive? He was elected after all. We need a litmus test to keep non-Christians out of the congress?

  3. nitpicker says:

    Hey, um, dumb guy? Ellison isn’t suggesting that Jefferson was Muslim or tolerant of every belief. (And, wow, did he really have slaves? That’s an amazing insight. I’m glad I spent some of the precious minutes of my life here.) Ellison’s simply pointing out that American tradition is based on an open-minded view of faith that your modern brethren seem to lack. Don’t believe me? Then, the next time someone argues that our country is based on the “JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION” because they saw the 10 Commandments in a relief at the Supreme Court, ask them if they noticed the statue of Mohammed there, too.
    As a matter of fact, for every Jeffersonian quote you can find condemning specific Muslim attributes, you can find a half dozen condemning Christianity and the attempt to beat people over the head with faith.
    For example: “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.”
    Mucho más aquí: http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

  4. larry says:

    ahhhhhh, the tired lefty morons weigh in upon the scene with their usual calls for reason; good will; be nice; etc etc. the lads are nothing if not predictable.
    and yet……it all falls apart should we turn it around to where THEIR ox gets gored. lets say the backwards, overall-wearing, cousin-marrying hayseed farmers of….oh……”arkansas” elect to congress one of their own: a fellow who follows the sacred teachings of the misunderstood prohet adolf, son of alois, hitler.
    and this newly and duly elected representative to the united states congress wants to swear in on *his* holy book: “the protocols of the elders of zion”, say. no wait….that won’t work, since most leftists secretly are convinced that that little book tells it like it is. yay palestine; greedy grasping israelis; you know.
    wait! wait! ok ok ok ok….he wants to swear in on “mein kampf”. HIS “holy book”.
    think we’d be hearing the same cries of “the book he lays his hand on doesn’t matter” from our nitwit lefty friends THEN? yeah, me neither.

  5. Dan Riehl says:

    “As a matter of fact, for every Jeffersonian quote you can find condemning specific Muslim attributes, you can find a half dozen condemning Christianity and the attempt to beat people over the head with faith.”
    Is it convenience pr stupidity that causes Liberals to so easily miss the point. There is one religion with a significant movement within it looking to beat people over the head (scratch that – cut off their heads) in the name of religion, and it damn sure isn’t Christianity.

  6. yyy says:

    It isn’t?
    Isn’t our own President a believer in ‘faith based’ initiatives on the government’s dime? How many non Christian faith based initiatives do you think the administration has given money to?
    Hasn’t our own Christian President said that god talks to him and god is working through him?
    Aren’t many of our elected officials hell bent on denying the right of gays to marry, women to have abortions, teens to have access to birth control and schools to teach evolution ALL BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS THEM SO?
    The idea of turning a handful of muslim terrorists into an indictment of all Islam is JUST AS RIDICULOUS as Hitler taking a grain of truth about jewish influence in Germany and turning it into a policy of killing all the jews.
    There is in fact no difference between your irrational hatred of muslims and the Nazis irrational hatred of jews. Both are based on tiny truths writ large, with a big ole helping of hate and fear.

  7. Dan Riehl says:

    your irrational hatred of muslims
    I don’t hate Muslims at all. What I hate are people who seek America’s downfall and who kill innocents without pause to achieve their goals. That isn’t all Muslims. My concern isn’t based in hate for any religion, or support of another. It’s about the preservation of America, a secular democratic country.

  8. yyy says:

    No, Dan, that is a lie and the proof are your own posts about muslims, torturing detainees, critics of Bush, the generals, you name it.
    I believe if you had your way that we would do exactly what we did in WWII, round up all the muslims, all the arabs and persians and put them in camps if they are American citizens or deport them if they are not.
    If you care about preserving America as a secular democratic country, which I also believe is a crock of shit, considering your blogs on church and state, then you should be at least as concerned about turning evangelical christian views about life, love, sex and morality into the law of the land.
    They are much more a threat to our secular democracy than a bunch of semi literate muslims who are too stupid to know they are being bamboozled about their own history, culture and religion.

  9. Thomas Hormby says:

    How is taking an oath on a Quran a endorsement of Muslim terrorism? When a Catholic takes an oath on the Bible is he endorsing the Spanish Inquisition or Catholic inaction during World War II? Of course not. Why on earth should he take an oath on a book he doesn’t believe?

  10. larry says:

    although the liberals above spread their usual bovine fertilizer, there IS a point they could have made, yet – somehow, strangely,mysteriously – didn’t.
    maybe ellison COULD have sworn in on ‘mein kampf’. even after all these years, it remains one of the best-selling books ion the middle east, a land populated by….uh….members of the religion of peace.
    when a book sells as many copies as MK has, in a given specific region, an argument can be made that the people who live in that region consider the book to be “holy”. right up there with the book that tells them its a fine idea to slaughter sheep & goats as a “sacrifice to their god of peace”, just like they did 5000 years ago. then they leave the poor animals carcasses on the city streets, and go home for an uproarious day of flogging, bandaging their self-inflicted sacrifice wounds, clitoridectomies, etc, as their holy book prescribes.
    just a thought.

  11. Tigger says:

    yyy…..idiocy.
    “Aren’t many of our elected officials hell bent on denying the right of gays to marry, women to have abortions, teens to have access to birth control and schools to teach evolution ALL BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS THEM SO?”
    I’m sorry but this line of logic is asinine.
    Do you really believe that people oppose abortion simply because a 2000 year old text tells them to? That line of thinking shows just how little interaction and understanding you have on this subject. Most people oppose abortion because it kills an innocent life for your selfish convenience.
    Gays have never had the right to marry so it’s impossible to deny someone this. Using that logic, I’m denying you the right to breath under water. You’ve never been able to do it, but I’m still denying you that ‘right’.
    I’m not sure that denying teens birth control is such a bad thing. Why give them the tools to do something that can only lead to problems? Oh! and saying ‘they’re going to do it anyway so they may as well be safe is a cop out’. Broken down to it’s most basic form that statement simply means that teenagers have no more control of their sexual faculties than the two dogs humping each other in your front yard. They….just…..can’t…..HELP themselves.
    Being able to control our urges is what seperates us from animals. Just because it’s inconvenient doesn’t mean it’s not possible.
    Your post wouldn’t have been so sad and pathetic if you didn’t actually believe you were putting forth good arguments. You need to take a course in critical thought.

  12. greg says:

    Here’s Jefferson authoring a piece of legislation that he later claimed was one of his life’s greatest achievments: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom of 1786:
    “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

  13. Yawn. More weak little conservative babies whining. Boo hoo. A big bad Muslim was lawfully elected and now you right wing wimps need to change your underwear.
    Conservatives tout an “originalist” literal interpretation of the Constitution but somehow the last clause of Article VI is open to … normally I’d say “interpretation”, but what conservatives are really doing here is completely ignoring it. I’ll quote it because I’ve found that few people have actually ever read the Constitution: “… but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
    In the comments you say “What I hate are people who seek America’s downfall and who kill innocents without pause to achieve their goals.” Where did Ellison shout “Jihad! Death to America!”? Which innocents did Ellison kill? Was he the 20th hijacker?
    You also say “It’s about the preservation of America, a secular democratic country.” I genuinely agree with this and I think we can find some common ground here. Please direct me to your post about how taking the oath with the Christian Bible is destroying America. I’d love to read it.
    P.S. I’d take my oath on something secular like “Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs.” It has some funny symbols on it and the people on the cover appear to be engaged in some sort of magical ritual. Is this going to be a problem?

  14. Rob Crawford says:

    “I’ll quote it because I’ve found that few people have actually ever read the Constitution: “… but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.””
    A clause which the left ignores when it comes time to nominate people to the Supreme Court.
    BTW — the biggest beef with Ellison isn’t what religion he follows, it’s who he associates with. CAIR, Nation of Islam — not exactly peace-loving, unwavering patriots.

  15. jim says:

    Wow.
    OK: saying that 1 person of religion X is bad, because another person in religion X did something bad, is illogical and un American.
    Period.
    Suggesting further that someone duly elected by his peers in America should not be allowed to honestly acknowledge their religion when elected – is disgusting, and contrary to the very principles this nation was founded on.
    Seriously.
    And all this crap about how all Muslims are America-hating killers because they’re Muslim is just that.
    Open your eyes. People far wealthier than all of us are manipulating YOU, because they like to have you in a fearful and hateful stance. The GOP, in particular, are playing you for SUCKERS. Please wake up. I’ll settle for you actually voting for real conservatives – you know, people who love the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, and not using US soldiers as playthings for ill-conceived and terribly executed adventures in foreign lands.

  16. jim says:

    Please show Jefferson’s statement that Muslims should not be allowed to be in the US government.
    If you can’t do that, then please show the statement of ANY of the founding fathers, that the Bible is the only document anyone will be allowed to swear upon.
    Since you won’t be able to do either, please then have the adulthood and grace to admit you were wrong, and move on. Because honestly, your adherence to this ridiculous position demeans us all as Americans. It is less worthy of discussion than Paris Hilton’s latest shoe purchase.

  17. ajsuhail says:

    Dan
    I feel sorry for u.You got your butt well and truly kicked! Think before u post the next time around.

  18. micah says:

    Oh please ajsuhail, Dan did NOT get his butt kicked!
    D.R. has the courage to say what reasonable people are secretly thinking, but can’t actually say out loud, because the “CHORUS OF THE POLITICALLY CORRECT” will freak out and the earth will explode! Which is only a ridiculous fear – because real TRUTH will stand on its own and will survive the test of time!

  19. Patrick says:

    Micah,
    I might have the courage to say that hitler was right. I would still be a bigot, no? I would just have “courage”. This post and the comments supporting it are pure bullshit. To claim you are for a secular democracy right after you post a rage about someone using the quran is the height of hypocrisy. Dan is having his ass handed to him because his positions are untenable and unamerican.
    BTW, does anyone note that this swearing in is his private swearing in, and that at the real one, no religious books are used? so in the end, this post is about as meaningless as it gets, while also being as bigoted and illogical as possible.
    I love the nonsequitor about Jefferson owning slaves. Ridiculous. I used to read this post. I don’t think I will bother anymore.

  20. ajacksonian says:

    Do remember that Jefferson did wage war on Muslims during the First Barbary War ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War ). People do tend to forget how long the US has been fighting Muslims of various sorts, be they pirates or brigands or insurgents in the Philippines or their modern day counter-parts as terrorists.

  21. jim says:

    More nonsense….
    Jefferson waged war against a nation with Muslims in it. Not a war against all Muslims, and not a war against the Muslim religion in any capacity.
    That’s like saying because almost all of the British citizens were Christians, the war of 1812 was fought against Christianity.
    Honestly. Come on.

  22. Grand Masta Mencken says:

    The guy was elected.
    There is STILL religous freedom in this country.
    He wants to swear by the Koran (or Quran), then let him do it.
    There really should be no debate. And Virginia Rep. Goode’s jingoistic, brainless, and Unholy remarks are unwarranted.

  23. Dan Riehl says:

    For the record, not that that means anything to Liberals, neither I nor Goode ever said Ellison shouldn’t be elected. I don’t believe there should be a religious test for high office. As someone pointed out, it’s the Left that does that when they confirm judges.
    The only position I am advocating is an appreciation for Judeo-Christian values in America and the desire to not become a majority Muslim country, given their poor record of advocating secular democracy where they represent majorities.
    And the simple fact is, a majority of limp wristed Liberals should, or probably do feel the same way – they just lack the guts to say it. It is not racist to advocate for the preservation of one’s preferred way of life. Europe is learning that lesson now, albeit it a bit late.
    As usual, the utopianist Left either can’t see, or can’t handle the truth. And they always attack those who speak it. If it weren’t for the silly attacks, individuals like myself and Goode might not realize just how right we are. So, for that, I thank you moonbats. Now fly away, fly away home you l-o-o-o-o-o-sers! Have a nice day.

  24. jim says:

    I don’t believe there should be a religious test for high office. As someone pointed out, it’s the Left that does that when they confirm judges.
    I’m glad to hear you don’t think there should be a religous test for high office. I just want to point out, that Liberals don’t think there should be either.
    If what you are alluding to is supporting judges who are pro-Choice, well consider this:
    Being Pro-Choice does not mean that you can’t be Christian.
    My Grandfather was a Methodist minister for 50 years, until he died. He was also pro-Choice. If you don’t believe a fetus is a person, there is no conflict.
    Therefore you are wrong.

  25. jim says:

    “The only position I am advocating is an appreciation for Judeo-Christian values in America and the desire to not become a majority Muslim country, given their poor record of advocating secular democracy where they represent majorities.”
    Advocate for your beliefs all you wish. Just be aware that in your attempt to force your Christian beliefs to the degree of being upset about what kind of book someone swears into office on, you are advocating against the wishes of our founding fathers.
    They didn’t want ANY religion in charge. Including very specifically Christianity. That’s why they wrote the Constitution the way they did.

  26. Shorter Rob Crawford and Dan Riehl: someone did something once that offended our principles so now its okay for us to do it.
    Dan doesn’t believe there should be a religious test for government but it should appreciate “Judeo-Christian” values. And exactly how are you going to enforce that? What if everyone in Kansas decided to convert to Islam? (It is their right.) How exactly do you maintain “Judeo-Christian” values when people can vote for any person they want unless you install some sort of religious test?

  27. Grand Masta Mencken says:

    The whole “Liberal” and “Conservative” paradigm used to label Americans is becoming a psychological disease considering both so called categories encompasses a very wide range of different people and beliefs.
    If someone supports an elected Islamic representative’s right to use the Koran, how is it liberal? And one opposed to it, conservative?
    This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It’s a tolerance and paranoia issue.
    Your fear, and Goode’s fear, of a Majority Islamic state shows (with all due respect) ignorance. There are more religons than Islam and Christianity and to say that Islam, somehow, will sweep the nation and convert billions in this country, or that billions of Muslims will enter this country, is severely irrational.
    Less we forget the millions of Catholic hispanics who live in higher concentrations just south of the border whom we are turning away just because some papers weren’t filled out.
    You’re right in one respect though, Riehl. Most would want to preserve this way of life. But let’s not do it at the expense of another people, or culture, or religion based soley on ones FEAR of an irrational scenarios, and ones IGNORANCE to the complexity of civilization.
    Ellison is using Thomas Jefferson’s Koran simply because he was attacked for being Muslim, by a man who in his simplistic Norman Rockwell reality, wanted to rile his voters into an angry mob, and to win the hearts of half-wits.
    You have a nice day too ;-)

  28. micah says:

    So what’s next then? Larry Flynt swearing on a copy of Hustler? Mit Romney swearing in on “The Book of Mormon”?
    Jefferson was an extremely gifted, but complicated, guy… Upon his deathbed he chose NOT to release his own children from slavery! This is terribly disturbing, but perhaps he thought it was his children’s best chances at a comfortable life in that day and age.

  29. “So what’s next then? Larry Flynt swearing on a copy of Hustler?” Yes.
    “Mit Romney swearing in on ‘The Book of Mormon’?” Yes.
    If these people are lawfully elected, they can use whatever they want for the oath. If the voters don’t like it, they can vote for someone else. Some elected officials are even subject to recall laws (e.g. the CA gov.). This is how it is supposed to work. Go democracy.

  30. Peter says:

    How can you deny someone the right to breathe under water if we aren’t physically equipped for such an activity. That is ridiculous. Marriage, however, is a construct of man. It’s always been a contract one way or the other no matter what the folks who don’t know anything about history say. The marriage question – for once and for all – is about equal rights under the law. It’s the ability for you to protect your loved one and provide for them in case of death of one or the other. It’s about getting your social security benefits or allowing your loved one to received those benefits upon your death. Gay marriage will not affect you or touch your life if you happen to be a happily or unhappily married straight person. So, really, butt out and shut the f*u*k up.
    Our friends of the Judeo-Christian ilk need to remember that there are other beliefs out there (and that there are some of us who don’t actually believe all that hookum) and that this is a nation that has no state-mandated religion. The framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing. Your Mein Kampf argument is specious. Pull your heads out and look around. There are some real problems out there. This is NOT one of them.

  31. “Some elected officials are even subject to recall laws”
    Any congressional rep can be thrown out on a 3/4 vote. No trial needed, no impeachment needed. Just a 3/4 vote.

  32. Dan Riehl says:

    Funny that people want to make this only about using a koran in a private ceremony, which is not even the issue being raised. I don’t object to him using it. And if he wants to misuse Jefferson’s, so be it. My point is it’s a shallow trick only serving to hide the face of radical islam today – a radical islam with which ELlison has already been linked to some degree.

  33. retire05 says:

    Peter, first you seem to forget that gays do have equal rights under the law and as much right to marry as anyone else. They are also limited to marry someone of the “opposite” sex. What you are advocating is changing the law based on nothing else except behavior. So please, name me one law ever enacted that was done so because of behavior. Please.
    Secondly, Ellison’s decision to take the oath of office using the Quran was not one of seeking religious freedom and if you think it was, you are sorely mistaken. It is in keeping with the teaching of the Quran to force others to accept Islam as the one, true faith. Even so, I would not have a problem with his using the Quran if, and it is a big IF, it were not for the fact that Ellison’s past is there to haunt him; his connection with the Nation of Islam, a violent group; his acceptance of campaign contributions from CAIR and that those who elected him think that shouting “Allah akbar” is the rallying cry for his campaign; his immediate aid to the “Flying Imams” and his defense of them; and the fact that not once has Ellison denounced the activites of the terrorists who belong to his religion. I would be equally unhappy with a candidate who followers shouted “In the name of Jesus” at his rallies.
    If you knew anything about Islam (which you don’t seem to) you would know that Islam mandates that a Muslim’s loyalty is never to any nation, but rather only to Islam, so immediately, Ellison has a conflict.
    If, and when, the time comes for Ellison to act according to our Constitution or according to Islamic law, what will his choice be?

  34. Thomas Hormby says:

    “As usual, the utopianist Left either can’t see, or can’t handle the truth.”
    How is using a Quran in a private, non-binding ceremony an act of the ‘utopianist’ Left? Do all Muslims want America to burn? Does Ellison want America to burn?
    Timothy McVeigh was pretty disgusted with American government and culture. Were his actions an act of war of Christians everyhwere on America? I don’t believe in collective guilt.

  35. Thomas Hormby says:

    Amen Peter!
    Why shouldn’t Gays enjoy the same custody, medical access and inheritance rights that heterosexuals enjoy? Marriage is a tool to protect couples and their families.

  36. nitpicker says:

    Why am I not surprised that only those on the right continue to mistake Mein Kampf for a holy book?

  37. Thomas Hormby says:

    “What you are advocating is changing the law based on nothing else except behavior. So please, name me one law ever enacted that was done so because of behavior. Please.”
    What about the anti-sodomy laws struck down in Texas? Gay sex became so common that society’s opinion changed, SCOTUS’ interpretation of the constitutional right to privacy changed and eventually the law changed too.

  38. JML says:

    Dan,
    Mr. Ellison is the very first Muslim elected to congress, no?. I don’t see a tidal wave of Muslims taking over our government. Then again, the lunatic-fringe Christian fundamentalists who have been in charge of America for the last six years have given us a faith-based foreign policy that might have worked out had reality not intervened. Maybe if we all pray at the same time…
    How is Mr. Ellison a threat to your Christian ways? How is this evidence that America is on its way to becoming a majority Muslim country? What’s the matter Dan; is the world just a bit too complicated for your tastes?
    Here’s an idea: Let’s give Mr. Ellison a chance to prove his worth. In the end, the people in his district will be the ones who decide whether he lives up to his expectations, not the rest of us.
    Should I ever get eleceted to any office in this country, I wanna be sworn in using a DVD of The Big Lebowski.

  39. anonymous says:

    “… a radical islam with which ELlison has already been linked to some degree.”
    To some degree, Dan has been linked to radical right-wing extremists who want to kill all who disagree with them. To some degree, Dan has been linked to fascists who want to outlaw any religious worship except for Christianity. To some degree, Dan has been linked to people who want to kill puppies.

  40. jim Ricker says:

    I tried, I really tried, to read down the post and comments but I can’t stand it. Dan Riehl is really, really, stupid. Goodbye.

  41. larry says:

    odd, is it not, that none of the bright-eyed hardcore kneejerk leftwing droolers currently infesting this thread wants to comment on ‘mein kampf’s everlasting bestseller status in the (arab)(islamic)(religion of peace) middle east?
    usually outsold only by the koran itself. the koran; and ‘mein kampf’. quite a bit in common, although hitler did not specifically endorse animal sacrifice or clitoridectomies, as the koran is alleged to.
    so we can then assume our liberal friends would have no problem with a kkk type swearing in on a copy of MK? that what you’re saying?

  42. JML says:

    Larry,
    Given Hitler’s “struggle” against the Jews outlined in Mein Kampf, it shouldn’t surprise you that dictatorial regimes and monarchies in the Middle East employ a propogate-hatred-for-the-Jews-so-the-public-doesn’t-turn-against-the-regime strategy that would allow Mein Kampf to make it past the government censors. Middle Eastern governments are all about manupulating their people. Bear in mind that in most of the Middle East, the flow if information is far from free and people will only buy that which is offered for sale.
    Saddam revered the Third Reich as a model of sorts for his regime. Would you please explain to us the cozy relationship of the Reagan (Conservative Hero) Administration with Saddam, you know, the Saddam who used Hitler as a model? Wasn’t Don Rumsfeld a special envoy to Iraq in the early 1980’s? Or was that during the days that Saddam was a saint? Tell us all how that served the Goodly Conservative Christian American interests. Really, please tell us, because I can’t figure it out.
    Would I have a problem with a KKK type swearing in on a copy of Mein Kampf? No, I would have a problem with a KKK type swearing in at all, but then this is America and southern states (or Indiana) are free to elect whomever they choose. Besides, a KKK type would probably swear in on the Bible since they are such proper Christians. (Oh, yes they are, just ask one!)

  43. Despite Republican protests, first Muslim elected to Congress insists upon swearing in on a Koran THOMAS JEFFERSONS Koran.

    As most people realize by now, the awesome melting pot of America recently progressed greatly when new Democratic Representative Keith Ellison was recently appointed by his constituents in the great State of Michigan to become our natio…

  44. Thomas Hormby says:

    “odd, is it not, that none of the bright-eyed hardcore kneejerk leftwing droolers currently infesting this thread wants to comment on ‘mein kampf’s everlasting bestseller status in the (arab)(islamic)(religion of peace) middle east?”
    Hard to imagine that anti-semitism might have taken hold in a region dominated by Israeli force. The Quran explicitly defines Jews as being ‘of the book’ and deserving of protection. It just happens that politics trumps religion (kind of like living an ascetic lifestyle in consumerist America)

  45. Thomas Hormby says:

    “Saddam revered the Third Reich as a model of sorts for his regime. Would you please explain to us the cozy relationship of the Reagan (Conservative Hero) Administration with Saddam, you know, the Saddam who used Hitler as a model? Wasn’t Don Rumsfeld a special envoy to Iraq in the early 1980’s? Or was that during the days that Saddam was a saint? Tell us all how that served the Goodly Conservative Christian American interests. Really, please tell us, because I can’t figure it out.”
    On top of that, Saddam was a secular, socialist, pan-arabist. Hardly a devotee to Islam. He once had Quranic verses written in blood in a mosque built to resemble SCUD missiles (both considered heretical). Politics definitely trumped Islam in Baathist Iraq just as capitalism trumps Christianity in America.

  46. Thomas Hormby says:

    “so we can then assume our liberal friends would have no problem with a kkk type swearing in on a copy of MK? that what you’re saying?”
    I’m a liberal type and I wouldn’t have a problem with a KKK-member being sworn in on a copy of Mein Kampf. Unlike the BRD where reverence for Mein Kampf is illegal, Americans have the right to free expression. I wouldn’t vote for him, but if he wins it’s his prerogative.

  47. Antioch says:

    “But let’s look at even more of the picture, while not forgetting that Jefferson owned a slave or two, as well. Is Ellison planing on swearing in on one of them, too? And if so, what religion do you think he or she would be?”
    This logic is ridiculous. What does that even mean?
    Let’s look at more of your picture. The internet has Maoist flyingfishing hate groups with web sites on it. Are you planning on becoming the leader of a Maoist flyfishing hate group too? And if so, what would your mother say about this if she knew you were a Maoist flyfishing KKK member?

  48. Bat Guano says:

    Gee Dan,
    It’s all about hate isn’t it? Anyone of a different color or persuasion just doesn’t cut in your book do they? The facts don’t really matter as long as you get to exercise your thinly veiled rascism. Grow up, you’re making yourself look like a pathetic, paranoid, rascist little man.

  49. Doctor Slack says:

    “a radical islam with which ELlison has already been linked to some degree.”
    The “degree” being that he’s a Muslim. By which standard all Christian have been “to some degree” linked to Timothy McVeigh.
    And I love it how, when a Muslim happens to inconveniently fail to provide fodder for the jihad-obsessed, he’s somehow engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the truth about radical Islam. He can’t possibly be just another human being living his life.
    Yeah, you don’t hate Muslims. Riiiight.

  50. Dan Riehl says:

    This logic is ridiculous. What does that even mean?
    How can you ask and profess to understand logic? Jefferson owned a Koran – that’s somehow supposed to make it special. I pointed out that he “owned” slaves. So, are they special, too? The point is, whether Jefferson owned a koran or not is irrelevant, particuarly as he was forced to go to war against Muslim nations. Ellison’s gesture is one of those empty gestures the Left always eats up. The notion that Ellison, a flunky of CAIR, the CAIR Boxer just pulled an award from due to their link to terrorism, is linked in some way to the legacy of Jefferson is a freaking joke.
    So, where are all the libs telling us how islamo-phobic Senator Boxer is, huh?
    What a bunch of clueless l-o-o-o-o-o-sers you are, as if you knew anything about logic in the first place.

  51. KH says:

    What possible reason could you have to dismiss the idea that Jefferson read the Koran as part of his reflection on natural law – in particular, in connection with his study of Pufendorf’s De jure naturae et gentium (which you refer to, without the least glimmer of recognition, as just “another book said to be prejudiced against Islam”) – as speculation with an “anti-theist sounding slant”? Do you actually have the least idea what the natural law tradition is? Pufendorf’s role in it? Its, or Pufendorf’s, influence on Jefferson? Its role in the American founding? Or is bumptious American populist “conservatism” so far degenerated that these seem like obscure academic questions?
    The idea that an 18th century intellectual steeped in the natural law tradition would read the Koran is neither surprising – indeed, it would have been surprising if Jefferson hadn’t read it – nor “anti-theistic speculation.”
    I also suspect that Thomas Jefferson would hold Riehl & his ilk beneath contempt.

  52. KH says:

    Jefferson’s copy of the Koran reminds us of the ecumenical influences on the natural law doctrine that he defended & that to an important degree framed American values & institutions, & of his views on religious toleration. The bitter irony that, were he alive today, this great man would be represented in the US House of Representatives by Virgil Goode is lost on nobody. Jefferson also was forced on at least one notable occasion to go to war with a Christian nation, which hardly proves that he or anyone else derogated or would be justified in derogating the Bible or Christian office-holders.

  53. Comte de Rochambeau with says:

    Mr. Riehl has been left too long alone with nothing to play with so he has
    become disturbed and manic. To generate this much bullshit over nothing
    is neither constructive nor instructive of anything germane to our understanding of each other or our motives. Mr. Riehl is a twit. May he enjoy the company of Mr. Beck, the well known fool. morons.

  54. ajacksonian says:

    Jefferson would not pay tribute to an area nominally held by the Ottoman Empire which saw itself as the heir to the Caliphate. The Dey of Algiers was a bit of a warlord and definitely a pirate, and extracting blackmail from Nations and harassing civilian shipping was the name of the game, back in the day.
    So is the contention that the Ottoman Empire only happened to have Muslims in it? Or was it, as most people and historians view it, a Islmic based Empire ruled by a Caliph that was set to see after the affairs of the Empire? While not being all too wonderful during that era, the nominal control arrangement of Tripoli was under the Ottoman Empire. As that was the largest, coherent Islamic Empire of that era saying that Muslims living there just happened to be ‘in a State’ ignores that the oversight of that State was that of an Islamic Empire. Jefferson may not of cared overmuch the religion of those trying to blackmail the Union, he would not pay it and Congress set the Nation to War to end such extortion and harassment of civilian shipping.

  55. salvage says:

    If stupid were old people and oranges Dan Riehl would be Florida.

  56. brad says:

    “What you are advocating is changing the law based on nothing else except behavior. So please, name me one law ever enacted that was done so because of behavior. Please.” What are you even asking, retire05? When did a law change because the behavior came not to be seen as criminal in society? As mentioned already, there’s sodomy laws. Then there’s race-mixing laws. Or no working on sunday laws.
    Ah, but gay marriage isn’t yet happening, you say. Then how about female suffrage? Your argument is bunk. N btw, stop acting like the Christian church owns marriage. The judeo-christian tradition did not invent marriage, and americans don’t have to be married in a religious context for it to legally count. I think two guys kissing is icky, too, but I got over it. Your turn.
    And Dan, racism is not clever. Implying Ellison’s loyalties are in question because he has relations with the largest islamic organizations in the country is plain stupid. (Here’s where you bury your head in the sand and say you saw pics of Ellison helping guys in CAIR tshirts carry a nuke across the mexican border. You know stuff we don’t, you’ve been on Fox.) You should be ashamed, but you’re too stupid to understand it.

  57. Devil's Advocate says:

    “How is Mr. Ellison a threat to your Christian ways? How is this evidence that America is on its way to becoming a majority Muslim country?”
    Dan is just another hysterical, paranoid, racist, bigoted, authoritarian. He is also remarkably stupid and abysmally ignorant.
    Note that Ellison, throughout the unpleasantless generated by the lunatic ravings of Dennis Prager, Roy Moore, and Virgil Goode, has shown restraint, grace, and class. He has also outwitted the paramoid idiots by choosing Jefferson’s copy of the Koran to use in his private ceremony. It is all the more ironic since Jefferson’ birth town is now part of Goode’s district.
    Guess who comes out ahead? The foaming-at-the mouth kooks or classy Ellison?

  58. Thomas Hormby says:

    Why not respond to the arguements put forth in the comments instead of creating a strawman? Nobody cares about CAIR. It seems your only issue is that Ellison would dare take his seat in Congress and use a Quran in his swearing in ceremony. Somehow you pulled Gay marriage and terrorism into the argument.

  59. john says:

    “So is the contention that the Ottoman Empire only happened to have Muslims in it? Or was it, as most people and historians view it, a Islmic based Empire ruled by a Caliph that was set to see after the affairs of the Empire?”
    So our war for independence was a war against the Church of England, right? Everyone acknowledges that the King of England is the head of that church. That church had/has adherents around the globe and had a massive empire and armed forces to back it up. What’s the difference between that and the Ottoman Empire? All monarchical heads of state were religious leaders as well. Duh.
    Dan, you and your buddies in the comments really don’t think very clearly.

  60. Brian says:

    “But let’s look at even more of the picture, while not forgetting that Jefferson owned a slave or two, as well. Is Ellison planing on swearing in on one of them, too? And if so, what religion do you think he or she would be?”
    Okay, Dan, I confess. You’ve stumped me. Is this an attempt to be funny, or just outright stupidity? If it’s the former, it fails miserably.
    Given your track record, I’m betting on the latter.

  61. Guy James says:

    Your site is an excellent bit of comic relief for me. Really, I do get a lot of laughs from your comments. Keep it up!!

  62. Christian says:

    “odd, is it not, that none of the bright-eyed hardcore kneejerk leftwing droolers currently infesting this thread wants to comment on ‘mein kampf’s everlasting bestseller status in the (arab)(islamic)(religion of peace) middle east?”
    where did you get this little gem? From Atlas Juggs? Gates Of Vienna? Or was it some other RW bedwetter?

  63. TTT says:

    Everyone upset by Ellison’s use of a Koran in his private ceremony is a witless bigot. And that definitely includes you, Mr. Riehl.

  64. Madame Defarge says:

    If Christian representatives can be sworn in using the Bible, representatives of other faiths should be able to use whatever holy book is appropriate for their religion.

  65. Davebo says:

    D.R. has the courage to say what reasonable people are secretly thinking, but can’t actually say out loud, because …..
    They don’t want those around them to realize that they are bat shit crazy. Dan on the other hand, doesn’t have to be concerned with that at this point.

  66. larry says:

    well how ’bout that. the leftwingers finally answered a direct question. ok folks! it’s settled! they finally came right out & said “they’d have no problem with an arkansas cousin-marrier swearing in on ‘mein kampf’.”
    just 2 quick points:
    1) naturally, being leftists, they had to (just HAD to!) get their quick shot in at christianity (“oh yes kkk’ers are christians!”) in a tone they’d *never* use towards a gracious religion of peace like islam, and
    2) i don’t believe them. after all the fuss they made about trent lott trying to say something nice at an old man’s birthday party, their claims of tolerance towards ‘mein kampf’ readers is a tad suspect. although there IS the “robert byrd’s ok by us!” factor….
    ’tis a puzzlement.

  67. bored says:

    Is Ellison planing on swearing in on one of them, too? And if so, what religion do you think he or she would be?”
    i understand ellison’s slave ancestors were christian, as were most slaves, forcibly converted as they were. when did your family get here, herr riehl?

  68. nitpicker says:

    Everything you ever needed to know about Dan Riehl in a single sentence: “What a bunch of clueless l-o-o-o-o-o-sers you are, as if you knew anything about logic in the first place.”
    Good stuff. The man’s a new Socrates.
    If Socrates were 13.
    And liked to loiter at the local mall.

  69. Christian says:

    I repeat, where did the “Mein Kampf is a best seller in the Middle East” come from?

  70. ts says:

    What the hell are Judeo-Christian values? If, as Dan implies, he adheres to them, we must assume they are: immense ignorance, a dangerous level of nativism, homophobia and the lack of writing ability.
    Why the fuck would anyone want to share those values?

  71. Thomas Hormby says:

    “1) naturally, being leftists, they had to (just HAD to!) get their quick shot in at christianity (“oh yes kkk’ers are christians!”) in a tone they’d *never* use towards a gracious religion of peace like islam, and
    2) i don’t believe them. after all the fuss they made about trent lott trying to say something nice at an old man’s birthday party, their claims of tolerance towards ‘mein kampf’ readers is a tad suspect. although there IS the “robert byrd’s ok by us!” factor….”
    You’ve made three errors. First, allowing people to use whatever book they want is protected speech so why should I have a problem with it? I certainly wouldn’t vote for somebody who held Mein Kampf in reverence but it’s his right to use the book he chooses.
    Second, using the Quran is not a defense of Islam. It’s just as corrupted as any other large religion, if not more so. Plenty of oddball beliefs (switching Ishmael with Isaac?). But Ellison believes in Islam so he should probably use the text that holds meaning for him.
    Third, a tacit endorsement of a segregationist presidential candidate should be enough to upset anyone. It was Trent Lott’s right to say it, but he has to deal with the consequences. Except for Louisiana, if a politician reveres Mein Kampf, he’ll lose his next election in a landslide.
    Why do you hat the constitution? Why do you think freedom of speech should only apply to a select citizenry?

  72. stupidBaby says:

    WOW…. That is AMAZINGLY STUPID. and that’s coming from one who knows.
    By that logic, I suppose all our Elected Officials will have to start swearing on slaves… unless they’re John Adams.

  73. “I repeat, where did the “Mein Kampf is a best seller in the Middle East” come from?”
    I’m having trouble making embedded hyperlinks work (I forget if Dan’s blog permits all of them) so pardon the elementary non-coding–
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/turkey/story/0,,1447209,00.html Mein Kampf Sales Soar in Turkey, The Guardian
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4361733.stm Similar story at BBC
    http://www.answers.com/topic/mein-kampf
    * Mein Kampf sells many examples in England in areas with a large Arab population [1].
    * An Arabic edition of Mein Kampf has been published by Bisan publishers in Lebanon.
    * Mein Kampf is sixth on the Palestinian bestseller list[2] and a bestseller in the entire Arab world [3]. (Answers.com)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F03%2F19%2Fnmein19.xml
    Mein Kampf For Sale, in Arabic, The Telegraph:
    Mein Kampf for sale, in Arabic
    By Sean O’Neill and John Steele
    Last Updated: 7:43pm GMT 18/03/2002
    AN Arabic translation of Hitler’s Mein Kampf which has become a bestseller in the Palestinian territories is now on sale in Britain.
    The book, Hitler’s account of his life and anti-Semitic ideology written while he was in prison in the 1920s, is normally found in Britain in academic or political bookshops.
    But The Telegraph found it on sale in three newsagents on Edgware Road, central London, an area with a large Arab population….
    ===================
    Big surprise there.
    Anti-Semitism is a commonplace feature of Arab and Middle East culture, excepting, usually, Israel’s. Anyone who examines popular media is aware of this. Mein Kampf is just part of that fabric.
    Hope the links help.

  74. Devil's Advocate says:

    What is this crap about liberals approving of “Mein Kampf”? I don’t see anyone on this thread approving of “Mein Kampf”. Typical paranoid kook! Make things up as you go along because you don’t have a chance in hell to ever make sense.

  75. Devil's Advocate says:

    What is this crap about liberals approving of “Mein Kampf”? I don’t see anyone on this thread approving of “Mein Kampf”. Typical paranoid kook! Make things up as you go along because you don’t have a chance in hell to ever make sense.

  76. Thomas Hormby says:

    Hard to believe that the Palestinians would be anti-semitic. Middle Eastern culture (especially where dominated by Bedouin Arabs) are comically corrupt. If it can’t be explained in a conspiracy theory then don’t bother explaining it. If a new initiative can’t line the pockets of every level of the bureaucracy then don’t bother proposing it.
    That’s one of the biggest reasons why we’re losing in Iraq. The culture is so ill suited to economic growth and capital investments. The Palestinians and Egyptians struggle to keep the lights on while Israel builds semiconductors and advanced (nuclear?) armaments.
    There are exceptions to the rule, of course. Bahrain, the UAE and Qatar are all making serious progress in building an oil-independent economy with educated citizens and clean governance.

  77. Thomas Hormby says:

    I wonder if he’ll respond directly to the comments? Probably not. He’ll just pull a Retire05 and bolt from the discussion after somebody calls him out.

  78. Jim says:

    I honestly cannot recall seeing someone get their ass kicked so thoroughly in the comments section of their own website. Nor have I seen the person who was getting their ass kicked try so hard to reframe the debate while the kicking gained intensity. Nor have I seen that effort so greatly increase the ass-kickery.
    Dan Riehl, breaking new ground in digging deep holes.

  79. Jim says:

    “L-o-o-o-s-e-r-s.”
    That’s the sound of a man–Dan Riehl–going down with the ship, despite having lost control of it before it ever left port.

  80. Dan Riehl says:

    That’s the sound of a man–Dan Riehl–going down with the ship.
    LOL No, that’s the sound of a man having comment fun at the Lefty silliness here. You do realize that even the Dem leadership doesn’t take you folks seriously, right? Oh, they are good at taking your money. And in return you get lip service on Iraq, on the 100 hour single House initiative that’s going nowhere fast, etc.
    Why shouldn’t I enjoy watching you? You’re always good for a laugh.

  81. Christian says:

    So what are the numbers for sales in other regions of the world? Ya know, for comparison.
    And, BTW, I’ve read Mein Kampf(well parts of it actually), does that mean I approve of the message or I’m an anti-semite?
    On a side note, Turks are not ‘arabs’, nor are they a muslim state. They are a secular nation that considers themselves europeans rather than middle easterners.

  82. Jackson says:

    All your sacred book crap. No matter what they swear in on, they are going to lie and screw over their constituency. Religious people of all stripes – you ruin everything in the names of your gods. We’d be best off with a good cleansing of any god from being anything but interesting sources of law. Secular nations with secular laws that permit religions of all stripes (at least law-abiding) is fine. Keep your god out of my laws and I’ll keep my laws out of your church. That goes for all of you.
    Jefferson’s Koran? He was a deist at best – all the others should swear in on Saddam’s bible – close enough.

  83. Ellison To Use Jeffersons Koran

    Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert said the new congressman “wants this to be a special day, and using Thomas Jeffersons Quran makes it even more special.”
    “Jeffersons Quran dates religious tolerance to the founders of our country,” h…

  84. Dan Riehl says:

    On a side note, Turks are not ‘arabs’, nor are they a muslim state. They are a secular nation
    LMAO – Educate yourself, Christian. People may start taking you seriously. Go read up on how Turkey’s secular state treats any religion other than Islam before you make such foolish statements. That’s one reason why they are not yet getting into the EU. And you also fail to appreciate what the ottoman empire was at the time in question. Stop wasting my bandwidth with ignorance of the facts.

  85. Thomas Hormby says:

    Arab is not the same as Muslim. Turks are Turks and most of them are secular Muslims. The majority of Muslims are not Arabs. There’s a difference.

  86. Thomas Hormby says:

    “LOL No, that’s the sound of a man having comment fun at the Lefty silliness here. You do realize that even the Dem leadership doesn’t take you folks seriously, right? Oh, they are good at taking your money. And in return you get lip service on Iraq, on the 100 hour single House initiative that’s going nowhere fast, etc.’
    How is Ellison (a moderate) using a Quran an example of the Democratic leadership ignoring its liberal constituents? If it ignored its constituents then why does Nancy Pelosi support late term abortions? She’s a liberal Democrat and much of the rest of them are too.

  87. Christian says:

    You’re the one that needs to do some reading, especially about a fellow named Attaturk in the twenties.
    Here, I’ll give you a lift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attaturk
    Are you saying that Turkey is like Iran?
    Turkey has a secular government, end of story. BTW one of the main reasons blocking entrance into the EU was Turkey’s recalcitrance to admit and apologize for the massacre of Armenians.

  88. Thomas Hormby says:

    Will you respond directly to this instead of making a strawman or reference lefty loonies, Dan Riehl?
    Should specific books/works be banned in congressional swearing in ceremonies? What is so harmful in having a moderate Muslim in congress? How are Turks Arab?
    Honestly, you’re just flat out wrong about Turks. Racially, linguistically and culturally the Turks are radically different from Arabs. That’s one of the reasons for the Arab uprisings under the Sherif of Meccah during World War I.
    Their one common attribute is religous roots, but the Islam of the Sultan is radically different from the more fundamentalist Wahabbism prevalent in the Arab peninsula. In fact, Shariah law is expressly banned by the Turkish constitution.

  89. yyy says:

    Dan and his cadre can’t win on the facts, why else do you think they have to twist them so much, or, more often, just hurl insults at anyone that dares to contradict them with a fact or a piece of logic.
    It goes like this: Islam is a religion of hate and evil, all, repeat, all followers of Islam hate the West, are anti semites and are dedicated to destroying Western Civilization and America; we are in a death struggle with Islam and if we don’t wake up and start killing the Arabs=Muslims before they kill us our society and way of life is doomed.
    Every other crackpot idea, half truth and lie flows from this premise, which is unshakeable.

  90. Gory Rupert says:

    Mind-tboggling, Reihlly, that someone who has been on nationwide television multiple times as a pundit and so-called expert would use “What a bunch of clueless l-o-o-o-o-o-sers you are, as if you knew anything about logic in the first place” as the surest arrow in his quiver.
    Impressive rhetorical skills.

  91. larry says:

    couldn’t help but notice, thomas, in your savage thrashing of lott & louisiana – backwards redneck racists, you understand – that you somehow neglected to mention the senator who actually WAS a member of the kkk. held a leadership position, too.
    why is that? you from west virginia? or is it the little “d” they put after byrd’s name? could that be it?

  92. brad says:

    Well, larry, no one defends byrd’s past. It’d be effing ridiculous to do so, kin to, I dunno, suggesting a segregationist candidate for president mighta shoulda won back in the day. Also, in a comment thread where Danny boy is implying muslim equals at least suspect loyalty as an attempt to keep the non-existent rhetorical points gained from calling attention to the fact that Jefferson owned slaves in addition to a koran, well, larry, the overt religious and racial bias isn’t being displayed by us loooooooooooooooooser moonbats.

  93. Dan Riehl says:

    Will you respond directly to this instead of making a strawman or reference lefty loonies, Dan Riehl?
    Should specific books/works be banned in congressional swearing in ceremonies?
    No book is used in an official ceremony. But no book should be banned for private use. That’s been my position since weeks ago when the issue became clear. Ellsion is entitled to use whatever book he chooses.
    What is so harmful in having a moderate Muslim in congress?
    None so far as I can tell. It would actually be very beneficial for Islam and for America. However, Ellison’s relationship with CAIR, his support for the flying Imams and his seeming reluctance to openly take a strong stand against radical Islam and terrorism leaves open the question of just how moderate is he?
    How are Turks Arab?
    You’re conflating modern Turkey for the enemiy we faced in Jefferson’s time. From NRO link at top:
    “Even after it became commonplace for the pirate captains or their crew to be renegade Europeans, it was essential that these former Christians “turn Turk” and convert to Islam before they could be accorded the honor of engagement in al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea”
    Honestly, you’re just flat out wrong about Turks.
    Their one common attribute is religous roots, but the Islam of the Sultan is radically different from the more fundamentalist Wahabbism prevalent in the Arab peninsula. In fact, Shariah law is expressly banned by the Turkish constitution.
    I said nothing about their embracing Sharia law. Christian said they were a secular democracy. As you can find from a little research, they do not allow Christian churches to own land and are actively discouraging their maintenance and growth in Turkey. Islam does not face that opposition. Any government which takes the formal side of one religion versus another through the enactment of law can not legitimately be called secular.

  94. Thomas Hormby says:

    Then why not pose your opposition to CAIR as opposition to CAIR rather than disgust at the use of Quran in a private ceremony? CAIR is hardly a reputable organization and Ellison recognizes that. He wasn’t offered the group’s endorsement (though he did accept $3,000 from two CAIR members).
    When the Marines landed in Tripoli, they confronted the Barbary States, which were either independent (in the case of Morocco) or practically independent from the Sultan (Tripoli). The Ottomans were already in decline by the First Barbary War. Even if Jefferson had attacked the Ottomans head on, he would have attacked Turks (who outnumbered all other racial groups in the Ottoman Empire and still have until the mid twentieth century).

  95. basils says:

    Hey what about the ancient city of Makor? Follow history from there bubs.

  96. Thomas Hormby says:

    “couldn’t help but notice, thomas, in your savage thrashing of lott & louisiana – backwards redneck racists, you understand – that you somehow neglected to mention the senator who actually WAS a member of the kkk. held a leadership position, too.”
    Why should I have to condemn every racist/bigoted Democrat in a post defending Trent Lott’s right to an opinion (even if I don’t respect it)? I didn’t say that Lott was a typical bigoted Republican, just that he can say whatever he wants, but so can everybody else so he should be willing to suffer the consequences.
    Byrd’s just like Lott. He’s entitled to express whatever opinion/belief he chooses to, but he has to deal with the consequences.

  97. Dan Riehl says:

    disgust at the use of Quran in a private ceremony?
    Link please? Where have I stated such disgust, or said he shouldn’t be permitted to use it after learning this was a personal and not a governmental ceremony?
    It’s always the same. I’m accused of creating strawmen arguments, when the Leftist thread commenters have been arguing against a strawman all along.
    And you wonder why I either lose patience, or dismiss you.

  98. Thomas Hormby says:

    “If American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.”
    From the letter Goode sent out to his supporters and the Charlottesville chapter of the Sierra Club that you endorsed.
    http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=141404064431134&ShowArticle_ID=11041812060944420

  99. Dan Riehl says:

    “If American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office”
    And your point? Unless or until Muslims demonstrate a capacity to appreciate secular democracy, I don’t want them having too strong a voice in American politics. And neither do the bat shit crazy liberals that happen by here. Only a dullard thinks this is all about a silly book.

  100. Thomas Hormby says:

    If you endorse the letter then you don’t want more Muslims in congress and you don’t want them to use the Quran to take the oath of office.

  101. Dan Riehl says:

    If you endorse the letter then you don’t want more Muslims in congress and you don’t want them to use the Quran to take the oath of office.
    Look asshat, what I endorse is what I say I endorse. Or should I assume because you may have voted democrat you endorse having 90 g’s in your refridgerator, or once running a whore house out of your townhouse, or driving drunk into a highway barrier.
    Get over it and be glad there are people willing to speak up for the American traditions that allow you to spout nonsense.

  102. Thomas Hormby says:

    I don’t know why namecalling is necessary. The thing is, you seemed to have endorsed Virgil Goode’s letter decrying Muslims in congress and their use of the Quran in their swearing in ceremonies. Am I wrong?

  103. Thomas Hormby says:

    “Get over it and be glad there are people willing to speak up for the American traditions that allow you to spout nonsense.”
    How is it nonsense? If you endorse the Virgil Goode position on immigration, Muslims in congress and the use of the Quran then it seems like you should at least cop up to it.

  104. Dan Riehl says:

    How is it nonsense? If you endorse the Virgil Goode position on immigration, Muslims in congress and the use of the Quran then it seems like you should at least cop up to it.
    Good grief, I can’t “cop” to it anymore than I have. Do you even read replies?
    “Unless or until Muslims demonstrate a capacity to appreciate secular democracy, I don’t want them having too strong a voice in American politics”

  105. Thomas Hormby says:

    “Unless or until Muslims demonstrate a capacity to appreciate secular democracy, I don’t want them having too strong a voice in American politics”
    So you don’t think that Muslims should hold seats in congress or use a Quran to be sworn in during a private ceremony because of the attitudes and beliefs of terrorists?
    How much time will have to pass until you can tolerate a Quran being used in a private ceremony and a Muslim taking his seat in congress?

  106. Dan Riehl says:

    Duh. As I haven’t advocated either position, no one can be as stupid as you, so I’ll just assume you’re a troll.

  107. Thomas Hormby says:

    “Duh. As I haven’t advocated either position, no one can be as stupid as you, so I’ll just assume you’re a troll.”
    It’s not being trollish to call you out on being anti-Muslim. What’s with the ad hominem attacks? I sincerely don’t understand how somebody could reconcile the principles that America were founded upon (not just religous beliefs but religious coexistence if not tolerance [that term always annoys me]).

  108. M. Simon says:

    JML | Thursday, January 04, 2007 at 01:20 AM,
    Mistakes were made. They are in the process of being corrected. One Hitler lover recently got the hemp necktie. Many more to follow.

  109. JML says:

    Larry,
    You forgot to answer my question:
    “Would you please explain to us the cozy relationship of the Reagan (Conservative Hero) Administration with Saddam, you know, the Saddam who used Hitler as a model?”
    In leiu of a response to this question, you suggested that I attacked Christianity. This is typical conservative chickenshit: rather than respond to a challenge, you scream “anti-Christian” or “anti-American.” You hoped that nobody would notice that you changed the subject.
    My point was that fringe groups like the KKK, or Al-Qaeda for that matter, often try to find “cover” under more mainstream institutions, such as popular religions. While I think that the KKK are 180 degrees from anythnig remotely Chist-like, that doesn’t affect how the KKK views itself. Are you seriously denying that the KKK considers themselves Good Christians? Please explain why you think that the KKK doesn’t see itself as Defenders of the Faith.
    You’re the one who introduced the KKK / Mein Kampf issue, remember?
    For better or for worse, America is a free country, even for the KKK and like-minded ingorant racist chickenshit assholes.

  110. M. Simon says:

    Thomas Hormby | Thursday, January 04, 2007 at 02:13 PM,
    The Iraqi economy grew 4% last year. That is rather unusual for a place that is supposedly a lost cause.

  111. MedallionOfFerret says:

    Wingnuttery at it’s finest. Jesusfreakery at it’s finest. Sometimes I can’t understand how I can be so blessed as to live in such fine times.

  112. JML says:

    Simple Simon,
    The Iraqi economy grew 4 percent last year? Gee that’s fantastic. 4 percent relative to what? 4 percent of shit is shit. According to George Bush, Son of God, Iraq was supposed to be making money hand-over-fist with oil revenues by now. What do you suppose happened?

  113. Thomas Hormby says:

    According to Photius, Iraq actually experienced -3% growth from last year. This was a lot worse from 2004, when it experienced 20% growth. Or even 2000 when it experienced 10% growth under Saddam.
    http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/gdp_real_growth_rate_2006_0.html

  114. Thomas Hormby says:

    What about Iraq’s current condition tells you that the war can be won militarily? Insurgents are coursing in from abroad and are springing up domestically. Around a hundred civillians dying from attacks daily in Baghdad? 150,000 service members disabled physically or mentally? I don’t see how we can win, and that’s sad, but Iraq was so badly mishandled.
    In East Germany, the Westies brought in thousands of West German advisers to rebuild the infrastructure. In Iraq, there were fewer than 5 people. It was bad from the get go.

  115. JMV says:

    Nitpick…You state”For example: “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.”
    The truth is that Atheism is the real force behind the mass murders of mankinds history not religion, not Christianity. In the 20th century alone Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced mass slaughter, murdering more than 100 million people attempting creating their religion-free worlds.

  116. Thomas Hormby says:

    Hitler hardly wanted to start a religion-free world. He and many of the higher ups in the Nazi party were involved in occult thought. There are crazy people everywhere and they’re prone to using religion (or non-religion) as a rationale for their behavior.

  117. Mysticdog says:

    “Do you really believe that people oppose abortion simply because a 2000 year old text tells them to?”
    Ummm… no. The bible doesn’t tell people to oppose abortion. In fact, causing a woman to miscarry is treated as a minor proprty crime, in which the offender owes the family a little money.
    I think people oppose abortion because they are insecure idiots looking to daddy figures to tell them what to believe, and there are lots of “christian” daddy figures making mo’ money getting people enraged.

  118. djangone says:

    Oh jebus, let me think this out. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. And he owned a Koran. So…therefore…he’s a newt who floats on water. Wait, no, holdonholdonholdon I have it. He owned…both GOOD things…and BAD things! And we shouldn’t assume that just because Jefferson owned it, that his ownership constitutes absolute good! Wheee! It’s about Jeffersonian Ownership.
    But wait, I think it could, just possibly, really be about Jeffersonian Beliefs. Hang with me here. Jefferson believed that all men were created equal (nice use of the passive there, Tommy). Jefferson believed in religious tolerance. Jeez, you’d almost think he was some kind of Islam-lovin’ godless librul. Has anyone looked into his accounts for donations to CAIR? Can we safely call Jefferson ‘Al Qaeda’s Officially Endorsed Founding Father’?
    But waitwaitwait again, that’s just Jeffersonian Beliefs. Who’d ever start a nation on such flimsy hokum? Along with Dan, I believe it’s equally about what he owned. Jeffersonian Stuff. So, we’re hereinafter also, not only a nation of slaves, a nation of SNUFF! And DUMBWAITERS. And BLUNDERBUSSES. So when djangone gets elected to office, djangone is going to swear in a private ceremony with my hand firmly on the right breast of a buxom Ethiop named Sally, who balances on her head a jar of snuff, her right foot atop a bust of Homer, her left foot firmly in a pile of horse manure, and her right hand supporting a long musket, while she’s flogged from behind for adult’ry.

  119. prozacula says:

    once again, riehl stupid.
    how could you say that ellison doesn’t know how to ‘appreciate western democracy’? he was elected in a democratic election. I bet he knows how to appreciate that.
    man, you and all of your sycophantic bush-licking followers really are as dumb as everyone thinks you are.
    I can’t wait until you extremists fade into the obscurity you so rightly deserve.

  120. bob says:

    Islam is a death cult, pure and simple. To compare their atrocities done in the name of allah TODAY to that of christains hundreds of years ago is just idiotic. All you defending islam might want to read the koran or better yet, watch some tv from the mideast then get back to us. Defending islam is like defending child rape, discrimination against women, slavery, and anti semitism. Go ahead, defend sharia if you dare.

  121. Robert says:

    Dan
    I’m glad Mr. Ellison is taking the oath on a Koran. It shows me that he is serious about his vow to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States.
    And, in the end, does it matter what item one uses to take an oath on, whether it’s a Koran or a Bible or a Torah or a kitchen spoon? What matters is the faith and honesty of the person taking it.
    After all, George W. Bush took his oath on a Bible and look at all the way’s he’s dumped on the constitution.
    Your rantings make no sense.

  122. larry says:

    and there ya have it. as bob points out above, islam IS a death cult. a cult that prescribes and practices the systematic prejudice and abuse of women; homos; and – just to cover all the bases – defenseless animals. those 3 groups (women, homos, and critters) are usually thought of as the left’s signature core members, and attacks upon them by right-wingers (“attacks” being defined as “saying mean things about them”) are met by the left with howls of rage and screams of battle.
    but since it’s islam – and islam is the enemy of all things western – it’s given a pass by the left. why? easy enough: the brainwashed leftwing shit-for-brains have been told all their lives, by their teachers and profs, that “all things western are evil, bad, & wrong. they are to be attacked in all possible ways”. and – more to the point – should the institution attacking the west be a serial abuser of – you know – women, homos, or animals, then they’ll just have to get a pass. (see above, ad nauseum. note the glee at which they promote islam over the evil white christian meanies.)
    since the idiot LW’ers never had the brains or the balls to question teacher’s spoon-fed dogma, they swallow it up blindly, and then go out and *do as they’re told*. so the question is: are they more *hypocritical*, or *contemptible*?
    ellison and the death cult he’s representing in the us congress (surely no one is idiot enough to think he gives a rat’s ass about his minnesota constituents. he’s there to represent ISLAM, baby) stand for things like the ritual slaughter of defenseless animals in the streets of middle-eastern cities. he stands for the flogging, and hangings of homosexuals in afghanistan, and the floggings and hangings of loudmouth teenage girls in iran.
    and still the left defends them. “it’s just a book! what book he swears in on shouldn’t matter!”

  123. djangone says:

    ‘It’s just a book! What book he swears in on shouldn’t matter!’ Okay, sounds right to me. Thanks, I’ll take it even with the fourth-grade grammar.
    Is this really a home for LGF Lizards of the drooling variety such as Larry? Mr. Riehl, how proud you must be. Next up, I fully expect some ‘proof’ that Rachel Corrie was the clandestine love slave of Abu Nidal.

  124. Thomas Hormby says:

    Islam isn’t the root cause of the violence in the Middle East. Poverty and ignorance are. If Islam was the root cause then why are Indonesia and Malaysia both well developed and relatively free? If Christianity is the official religion of freedom then why do Robert Mugabe and Charles Taylor mutilate their political opponents in the name of God?

  125. larry says:

    ok, djangone, you’re up! since islam is the driving force for the middle east’s serial abuse/murder of women and homos and critters, are you then willing to say “that being the case, it’s clear that islamic society is demonstrably inferior to our own, western/christian society”?
    no?
    you probably don’t understand this – teacher probably never covered it for you – but your M.O. of popping in to squeal insults and then running away like a little bitch kinda….dude….’makes my argument for me’.
    get back to us on that, ok?

  126. larry says:

    and, tommy? if, as you sanctimoniously mouthed, “islam isn’t the root cause of violence”, then why are rapes skyrocketing in scandanavian cities?
    cities that never *used to* have a rape problem, but now that they’re infested by moslem immigrants, now do?
    why is that, i wonder? rape *IS* a crime of violence, isn’t it? the rape rate HAS gone up in direct proportion to the moslem immigrant population rate, hasn’t it? what else could it be?
    is it somehow bush’s fault?

  127. Thomas Hormby says:

    “and, tommy? if, as you sanctimoniously mouthed, “islam isn’t the root cause of violence”, then why are rapes skyrocketing in scandanavian cities?
    cities that never *used to* have a rape problem, but now that they’re infested by moslem immigrants, now do?
    why is that, i wonder? rape *IS* a crime of violence, isn’t it? the rape rate HAS gone up in direct proportion to the moslem immigrant population rate, hasn’t it? what else could it be?
    is it somehow bush’s fault?”
    If you’re willing to accept Islam as the root cause for all the vices of Islam then you have to do the same for Christianity and for all of the good things Muslims do. Why are countries like Malaysia capable of competing directly with the US in semiconductors if Islam is holding them back? Is all crime in New Orleans due to Christianity? Was the PRI revolution in Mexico a failure of all Christians?
    No, it’s not Bush’s fault you hate Islam. It’s nobody’s ‘fault’ but your own. That’s kind of the beauty of America. We don’t have to hide behind the president or some other political leader to be heard/have controversial opinions.

  128. Thomas Hormby says:

    “cities that never *used to* have a rape problem, but now that they’re infested by moslem immigrants, now do?”
    What about Houston? After the surge of Katrina migrants entered the city, crime of all sorts skyrocketed. Is this because of Christianity or underlying social problems in New Orleans?

  129. Barry says:

    You are pretty much a piece of garbage, Dan.
    I’m delighted you and your ilk are becoming more marginalized each and every day.
    So long, suckers.

  130. larry says:

    the topic at issue wasn’t “houston”, tommy. it was “why are rape rates skyrocketing in scandanavian cities infested by moslem immigrants?”
    how’d you segue into a ‘houston/christians’ riff from *that*? were you trying to change the subject?

  131. Thomas Hormby says:

    “the topic at issue wasn’t “houston”, tommy. it was “why are rape rates skyrocketing in scandanavian cities infested by moslem immigrants?”
    how’d you segue into a ‘houston/christians’ riff from *that*? were you trying to change the subject?”
    I changed because isolated incidents illustrate very little. A rising rape rate in Scandinavian cities because of Muslim immigrants is not a result of their religion. It would be the same thing as saying the skyrocketing crime rate in Houston is because of Christianity. It’s not.
    Religion is used as an excuse for every behavior imaginable. Whether that be honor killings in Morocco or propagating stereotypes of Muslims.

  132. Kind of a stretch to turn one example into “Jefferson waged war on Islam”. If, G-d forbid, you were in a position of power and responded militarily to trading ships being plundered by Muslim pirates, your reason for doing so might very well be that the pirates were Muslim. We cannot assume that this was the case for Jefferson, who might just have not particularly liked seeing our ships plundered by pirates.

  133. M.Sphinx says:

    when a book sells as many copies as MK has, in a given specific region, an argument can be made that the people who live in that region consider the book to be “holy”.
    Huh? Is that why so many religious nuts want to ban Harry Potter?
    and this newly and duly elected representative to the united states congress wants to swear in on *his* holy book: “the protocols of the elders of zion”, say. no wait….that won’t work, since most leftists secretly are convinced that that little book tells it like it is. yay palestine; greedy grasping israelis; you know.
    wait! wait! ok ok ok ok….he wants to swear in on “mein kampf”. HIS “holy book”.
    think we’d be hearing the same cries of “the book he lays his hand on doesn’t matter” from our nitwit lefty friends THEN? yeah, me neither.
    Larry, Larry, Larry. Neither Me’n Kampf nor Protocols are ‘religious’ Nazi texts. If this hypothetical bigot were to swear on anything it would be the Nazi version of the Christian Bible.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=399470&in_page_id=1770

  134. Jennifer says:

    “But let’s look at even more of the picture, while not forgetting that Jefferson owned a slave or two, as well. Is Ellison planing on swearing in on one of them, too? And if so, what religion do you think he or she would be?”
    Color me vastly underwhelmed by your sterling “reasoning”, dude.
    1. Suggesting that because Jefferson, like the majority of political leaders of his day, owned slaves, that the Koran he owned is tainted by association.
    2. The ludicrous idea that someone would swear into office on a slave. Please give us examples of this tradition with such a long and hallowed past.
    3. As if #2 isn’t inane enough, you up the ante by pondering on what religion the presumptive slave might have been. This is a logical question to ask because….because….well, actually, it’s one of the dumbest questions I’ve ever seen in print, and for more than one reason, which is impressive, so let’s take them in order…1) why would the slave’s religion make any difference?…2) slaves were pretty much forced to adopt, or at least pretend to adopt, the religion of their masters. Which now that I think about it, sounds a lot like what you expect of Ellison.
    But the biggest asshattery of all is, of course, your obsession with what book one particular elected official chose to use in being sworn in. So it’s not a Bible. BFD. Why in the world would you want someone to swear on something that they do not follow? Are you trying to suggest that there is a religious test for public office, something along the lines of “you can believe something else, but only as long as you pretend to believe the same thing I believe”? Has it ever occured to you that you and others of your ilk are the creators and enablers of the Ted Haggards and Mark Foleys of this country? Quite apparently you find these folks good and fine as long as they lie and pretend to believe and behave the way you think they should. You prefer the costume to the real. Small wonder then that you should have so ardently supported George W Bush.
    Bestowing credit where it is due, I must compliment you for your skill at cramming so much stupid into so few sentences. That’s quite an accomplishment; I’m sure your parents would be proud.
    Put down the crackpipe, son, and back away from the keyboard. Your brain has slipped gears and you need to coast for a while.

  135. Thomas Hormby says:

    @M. Sphinx
    I don’t know why some of the more virulent conservatives tend towards ad hominem attacks.

  136. larry says:

    ahhhhhh, tommy, while it’s certainly pleasurable to watch you desperately tap dancing around the issue at hand, frantically tossing out something – anything – to change the uncomfortable subject, (“malaysia! morrocco! new orleans! all the good things that moslems do!”), it’s grows wearisome after awhile.
    so let’s save time, and i’ll make it easy for you. i have no problem saying the following: “i believe islamic culture to be inferior to our own, because – among other atrocities they promote – they systematically abuse and murder women, homos, and animals. furthermore, moslems seem to be prone to crimes of violence, especially *rape*. (see: oslo, stockholm, malmo, darfur)”
    i would think you – a leftwing moron, allegedly dedicated to promoting and protecting the rights of women, homos, and animals – would be right there with me in condemning the moslem BARBARIANS.
    and yet you’re not, are you? judgemental declarations like that about anything *non-western* make you uncomfortable, don’t they? this reinforces the point i made earlier. now please note this: i didn’t hide behind idiotic non-sequitur references to malaysia; i didn’t try to change the subject to houston’s troubles with the katrina trash….i used none of the meaning-obscuring devices you’ve tried to. i don’t need them, as you clearly do.
    still, despite your best efforts at masking meaning, your posts have made my point for me: idiot leftists hate the america & the west S0 much – just like teacher taught them to – that they’re willing to climb in bed with, and *DEFEND*, moslem BARBARIANS who violate every one of the left’s core “priciples”. every one except the big one: “hate AMERICA & the west & all it stands for. and never criticize ANY non-western thought/ideas/religion, no matter *what*, as this might imply that the western ideal is superior.”
    it’s what makes leftists and the left so utterly contemptible. not content to be merely power-mad fascists, stewing in hatred of everything their country was founded upon & stands for…..oh, no. you’ve got to be hypocrites, **too**.
    tell me where i’m wrong, if you can. try to leave malaysia & ‘the history of christianity’ out of it, if you can. don’t bother me with your wild musings on why string theory is wrong due to male-dominated non-queer mathematics, if you can. i breathlessly await.

  137. Thomas Hormby says:

    “i would think you – a leftwing moron, allegedly dedicated to promoting and protecting the rights of women, homos, and animals – would be right there with me in condemning the moslem BARBARIANS.”
    Personal attacks don’t make your opinion any more clear or convincing.

  138. Thomas Hormby says:

    The problem is that you’re condemning all of Islam. Moderates, democrats (lower case d) and extremists. So even though the House of Saud merits little respect on the world stage (or even domestically) there are Islamic countries with Western-style governments and economies.
    To use your logic in condemning Islam for the sins of Muslims, then I could condemn Christianity because some Christians do reprehensible things.

  139. Adolfo Rhitler says:

    “i believe islamic culture to be inferior to our own…)”
    You are the new master race!

  140. Twisted_Colour says:

    “I don’t hate Muslims at all. What I hate are people who seek America’s downfall and who kill innocents without pause to achieve their goals. That isn’t all Muslims. My concern isn’t based in hate for any religion, or support of another. It’s about the preservation of America, a secular democratic country.”
    a secular democratic country, a secular democratic country, a secular democratic country, a secular democratic country!!!!!!!
    So what then is your problem with Ellison?

  141. djangone says:

    Larry, look back at what you write for a second. If you can write a coherent post without strawmen, massive generalizations and grade-school taunts, you’ll maybe get taken seriously. This blog and its owner are stupid enough without the lizardoid bigotry about Islam as a ‘death cult.’

  142. Thomas Hormby says:

    Heh,
    Dan Riehl considers anybody who catches him on his anti-Muslim (Moslem went out of favor at the turn of the twentieth century) fervor(racism?)a troll but not people who sprinkle their posts with “asshat” and “leftwing moron”. Now I get it.

  143. larry says:

    tommy, your droning pontifications abhorring personal attacks and “ad hominem attacks” aside – odd, ain’t it, that i never seem to hear that high-minded speech from the caring lefty koolaid drinkers over at kos, making death threats and foulmouthed “we’ll hunt you rightwingers down!” fulminations – you’re once again dodging a chance to come right out and say it.
    “the problem is you’re condemning all of islam”. “the house of saud this.” “moderate islamites that.”
    passing entirely on any chance to A)deny that you think islamic culture superior to our own, and B)attack another, non-western culture for systematized barbarisms. (god forbid you make value judgements about such a thing, right?)(and, whaaaat? no comments to make on the flogged/beaten/hanged islamic homos, or sharp-tounged islamic young ladies? how come?)
    in other words, agreeing with everything i’ve written. making my point for me.
    good lord, why would ANY thinking person look up to a leftist? *not only* are they power-mad fascists; *not only* do they stew in self-hatred; *not only* are they contemptible hypocrites, ready to abandon their so-called principles at the drop of a mullah’s turban…….they lack even the guts to come right out and defend their beliefs. to say what they stand for, in clear, concise, non-clintonian language.
    i’ll let you go now…..am sure you’ve got to hop into bed with yet another despicable barbarian eager for your support in the ol’ “death to america” campaign.

  144. craig says:

    larry, calm down – you’ll wet yourself.
    You want to know what I, a “leftist” stand for, although it has been made clear over and over? Fine.
    I stand for democracy and the constitution. It’s that simple.

  145. larry says:

    what a bold and incisive post there, craig.
    but you forgot “motherhood” and “apple pie”.
    will you be making any other deeply courageous policy statements this evening? neglecting of course to mention any specifics?
    c’mon, now boys & girls: how hard can it be? islamites in places like afghanistan and iran are – even as we speak – are whipping and hanging harmless, innocent sharp-tounged teenage girls and wan, fey, curiously thin-wristed homos. they do this every day. they do it while proclaiming loudly that their barbaric religion – islam – says doing so is right & moral.
    *I* – larry – condemn these acts as the barbarisms they are; and i also condemn the pseudoreligion used as justification for these cowardly acts of brutality.
    you leftists….decline to do so. murmuring about how you “mustn’t judge all moslems by the actions of 75% of them”, or some such. why so shy? if it were your beloved KKK doing such things to san francisco bathhouse devotees; or radcliffe feminists, there’s no way in hell you’d be saying that. not a chance in hell you’d refuse to condemn the lot of them, en masse, for their fellow KKK’ers deeds.
    yet for islam – you’ll cut ‘em some slack.
    ***WHY?*** ***WHY?*** ***WHY?***
    oh, THAT’S right…..i’ve already answered that question. never mind.

  146. Best be elsewhere says:

    Reading this blog is akin to watching someone wank. Why are thinking people wasting their time with this asinine blogger? Answering his propos is an exercise both endless and pointless: point out the error of his theories and he’ll just answer that you’ve misunderstood or that you’re missing the point; even the most concrete and waterproof argument is answered with ad hominem attempts at discreditation or outright name-calling. The truth of the matter is that it doesn’t matter – the blogger’s own “message” – and the willingness of others to “follow” it – is the only reason for this blog’s existence. Bush and the neocons can play the “spin game” because they have ulterior motives; this blog has none.
    Those seeking constructive discussion would better spend their time elsewhere – leave this self-deluded wanker to rant and whine in his own filth, and he will sooner be forgotten.

  147. Thomas Hormby says:

    “tommy, your droning pontifications abhorring personal attacks and “ad hominem attacks” aside – odd, ain’t it, that i never seem to hear that high-minded speech from the caring lefty koolaid drinkers over at kos, making death threats and foulmouthed “we’ll hunt you rightwingers down!” fulminations – you’re once again dodging a chance to come right out and say it.”
    Personal attacks don’t make your opinion any more clear or convincing.

  148. Thomas Hormby says:

    “*not only* are they power-mad fascists”
    Even the most strident leftists are not fascists. Fascism is characterized by nationalist fervor not individual rights and certainly not the protection of dissent.
    From an essay Benito Mussolini wrote (supposedly it was ghostwritten by an Italian philosopher):
    “Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere. The importance of liberalism in the XIXth century should not be exaggerated for present day polemical purposes, nor should we make of one of the many doctrines which flourished in that century a religion for mankind for the present and for all time to come. Liberalism really flourished for fifteen years only. It arose in 1830 as a reaction to the Holy Alliance which tried to force Europe to recede further back than 1789; it touched its zenith in 1848 when even Pius IXth was a liberal. Its decline began immediately after that year. If 1848 was a year of light and poetry, 1849 was a year of darkness and tragedy. The Roman Republic was killed by a sister republic, that of France . In that same year Marx, in his famous Communist Manifesto, launched the gospel of socialism.”
    So not only is Fascism opposed to classical liberalism, the same type that your hero (if you’ve ever heard of him) Edmund Burke railed against, but it is opposed to the modern liberalism of Napoleon III who essentially invented much of the welfare state so many Americans utilize and rely on.
    http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

  149. Thomas Hormby says:

    “you leftists….decline to do so. murmuring about how you “mustn’t judge all moslems by the actions of 75% of them”, or some such. why so shy? if it were your beloved KKK doing such things to san francisco bathhouse devotees; or radcliffe feminists, there’s no way in hell you’d be saying that. not a chance in hell you’d refuse to condemn the lot of them, en masse, for their fellow KKK’ers deeds.”
    The modern day KKK organizations are essentially racist organizations. The Quran is essentially not a racist document. It happens that some of the regions where Islam is dominant are impoverished and racked with violence.
    If your hypothesis was true, however, every Muslim nation would be racked with violence. That’s not true. Countries like Malaysia are relatively free democracies. Qatar, the U.A.E. and Bahrain are less liberal (lower case l) but they are productive societies free of terrorism.
    Neither religion (Christianity or Islam) are better at maintaining an organized and safe society, historically. While Europe was undersiege during the dark ages and classical texts were lost it was the Muslims (Arabs actually) who preserved them and studied them in cities with running water and street lights. Now, Iraq isn’t capable of keeping oil powerplants going and countries like France rely heavily on Nuclear reactors and other clean sources of electricity.
    If your hypothesis was correct, then Christian societies would always have been better run (little violence, freedom of dissent and functional government) than their Muslim counterparts, but historically that’s clearly not the case.

  150. larry says:

    WOW, tommy! that’s quite some argument there! the holy alliance! pius IX! mussolini essays! whoo!
    clearly, you yearn to be thought of as a deep thinker.
    what you *didn’t* do was to condemn the barbarians who flog, beat, and execute women & homosexuals & animals as part of the rituals demanded by their bloody little pseudoreligion. not one peep of protest from the “classic liberal”, huh? (not to be confused with the left-wing fascists – hilter, mao, pol pot, your beloved mussolini – responsible for the systematic murder of so many tens of millions. i know, i know: those guys were *BAD* liberals. they shouldn’t be held against ya.)
    by your failure to condemn these acts of barbarism, despite repeated opportunities to do so, i have no choice but to assume that you APPROVE of them. although – being a liberal – you’d never be so bold as to come right out & SAY SO, it’s clear you think these atrocities are a Good Thing, as befitting any culural practice that’s not american/western.
    you hateful misogynist homophobe animal-abuser, you. how can you live with yourself?? how can you look in the mirror each morning?? i truly believe you should move to afghanistan or iran. you’d be so much happier there: gleefully clapping at the hangings of the wiseass teenage girls; hooting happily at the weekly homo floggings; joyously taking your turn slitting the animals throat for the glory of allah, and then hustling home to clean up for the ‘death to america’ rally. hey! maybe you could fly down to darfur, get in on the mass rapes! i bet they’d let you! i’m pretty sure they have weekend packages!
    did 19th century popes have anything trenchant to say about that?

  151. Thomas Hormby says:

    “you hateful misogynist homophobe animal-abuser, you. how can you live with yourself?? how can you look in the mirror each morning?? i truly believe you should move to afghanistan or iran.”
    Personal attacks don’t make your opinion any more clear or convincing.

  152. Thomas Hormby says:

    “what you *didn’t* do was to condemn the barbarians who flog, beat, and execute women & homosexuals & animals as part of the rituals demanded by their bloody little pseudoreligion.”
    If flogging, beating and executing women was a ritual demanded by Islam then Muslims wouldn’t be nearly as prolific, would they?
    If the majority of Muslims adhered to the principles you lay out in your posts then Islam would be a negative religion, but they don’t. Where do you get your figures that most Muslims believe in flogging, beating and executing women and homosexuals (animals can’t be executed since they are chattel and not subject to the law)?
    There are plenty of liberal (lowercase l) with a substantial Muslim population and several that are majority Muslim (including one of the largest in the world, Indonesia). Most Muslim countries do not adhere to Sharia law, or at least not using the same interpretation that would demand the flogging, beating and executing women and homosexuals.
    If your hypothesis was correct then the vast majority (or even all) of Muslims would believe in the extremely regressive interpretation of Sharia law.

  153. larry says:

    well, time to check in on ol’ tommy’s latest attempt to deny he favors the systematic islamic abuse of women, homos, and animals…..knowing the liberal tendencies towards wordiness and obfuscation, bet he’ll have to post at least twice…….
    hmmm…..yep: 2 posts; the usual pompous drivel professing dislike for the style of speech that i take directly from the good, tolerant liberals over at kos….yep; absolute refusal to condemn moslems for the barbaric brutalities towards women/homos/critters…..
    yep. same ol’ same ol’. tommy still thinks systematic moslem abuse of defenseless innocents to be a *good thing*. he just wants to cover it up with a meaningless discussion about small “L” liberalism vs. the big “L” type. have you checked into the weekend ‘rape’ packages in darfur with the mosque’s travel agent yet, tommy?

  154. Thomas Hormby says:

    You’re not responding to my question. How could Islam be a fundamentally bad religion if the majority of its adherents would endorse the flogging, beating and executing women and homosexuals?
    Where do you get your numbers that the majority of Muslims believe in flogging, beating and executing women and homosexuals?

  155. larry says:

    now why would i “repond to your question”, thomas, when you never got around to answering mine? well, to be fair, actually ya DID answer the question of “whether or not you condemn the systematic, institutionalized moslem brutality (including killings) of women, homos, and animals.”
    by your frequent and never-ceasing refusal to address this; much less (god forbid) condemn it, you have shown that you actually *approve* of it.
    i’ve demonstrated this for you quite a few times, now, tommy….and still you pretend it doesn’t exist. obtuseness of this magnitude is not all that common: is your last name by chance “zoolander”?
    BTW, if you can get someone to help you operate the computer, you might google the name “nazanin fatehi”. she’s the girl who was sentenced to hang by an (islamic)(“religion of peace”)(they’re actually quite modern, and moderate, and reasonable, you know. they’re just like us!) a court in iran awhile back. her crime? she fought off a gang-rape attempt. (what? what’s this? but moslems don’t *do* gangrapes! isn’t that what you said, tommy?)
    she actually got off easy. they *stone* women convicted of adultery in moslem countries, you know. google “amina lawal”, if you dare. gotta go! say hi to derek!

  156. Thomas Hormby says:

    “i’ve demonstrated this for you quite a few times, now, tommy….and still you pretend it doesn’t exist. obtuseness of this magnitude is not all that common: is your last name by chance “zoolander”?”
    Without cited facts you’ve proven nothing. How many Muslims flog, beat, and execute women & homosexuals? If it’s the majority of Muslims (or even a significant percentage) then I would naturally condemn Islam just as quickly as I would condemn Scientology or other sects. But a majority of Muslims do not believe in these things so I don’t need (or want) to condemn them.

  157. Mick says:

    “The [Arab] Ambassador [speaking to Thomas Jefferson] answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners” (qtd. in FSM Editors).
    Thomas Jefferson was serving as America’s minister to France at a time when “As many as a million and a quarter Europeans had been enslaved by Muslims operating out of North Africa.”
    Jefferson’s willingness to fight against the Muslim terrorists of Tripoli and the Barbary Coast gave America wonderful tales of Naval and Marine Core heroism and courage. “Outnumbered 10 to 1, [General William] Eaton and his men sent the defenders flying. After bitter street fighting, the Marines secured the fort. Lt. O’Bannon raised the American flag to the cheers of the sailors aboard the U.S. ships, witnesses to the first time the Stars and Stripes was ever raised in victory on foreign soil” (Seitz)
    http://www.cybermick.com/romans

  158. Thomas Hormby says:

    I guess it’s safe to assume that Larry has no facts to back up his deathcult hypothesis.

  159. Thomas Hormby says:

    Looks like the thread is dead, but one last point/quote:
    As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
    From the treaty of the Barbary Wars while we were still governed by the founding fathers.

  160. Russki says:

    Thomas, I’d be more than happy to bring the thread back for you since Larry has moved on. Words in a diplomatic statement, i.e. treaty, are typically lawyer drivel. The deathcult hypothesis has historical basis in every century since 622 AD. That was when Mohammad started his first jihad. And for the record, jihad is not an inner struggle for peace.
    your comment
    “They [evangelical christian ] are much more a threat to our secular democracy than a bunch of semi literate muslims who are too stupid to know they are being bamboozled about their own history, culture and religion.”
    Would not agree that a majority if not all of muslims believe in (1) the Prophet Muhammad (2) that the Prophet Muhammad was the perfect individual (3) that they should strive to emulate the Prophet Muhammad in every aspect of life? If you do not agree, you do not understand the Islamic religion.
    With that said, the Prophet Muhammad order Rabbi Kinana of Bani al-Nadir to be tortured until he surrendered the treasure of his village. The Apostle gave orders to al-Zubary bin al-Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has”, so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the Apostle delivered him to Muhammad bin Maslama and he struck off his head. That is in the biography of the Prophet Muhammad. A very old muslim text. Not some newly written, hijacked, bamboozled history of Islam.
    You argue without fact.
    622-632 Muhammad’s wars of conquest to expand Islam
    By 661 the next 4 Caliphs had expanded Islam by the sword from the western half of what is now Saudi Arabia, to a swath of land from Tripoli in North
    Africa over to Afghanistan.
    By 750 it stretched from Morroco over to India, into Spain. Slaughtering men, women, and children in every village after every battle.
    You need to do your homework if you want to make blanket statements about the passiveness of Islam.
    Peace be upon you.

  161. George, Texas says:

    To all of you: ALL organized religions are a waste of time and energy. The ALL try to achieve a goal of total control over their “flock”. The issue here is whether you want a NEW America modeled after the current radical islamic order. Whereby you will have no rights or freedoms of any kind. Islamic rule will be a dismal life for all except the top clerics. You will be forced to submit to worship as raghead does. Yes raghead, i said it and I don’t care. Christianity has at least evolved to be a peaceful religion. The values of the 10 Commandments are solid good rules to live by. If everyone, regardless of religious beliefs or NOT, could just live by half of those common sense rules. Then the world would be a much better place for all. Islam on the other hand hasn’t changed, and THEY preach hate and death to anyone that is not following Islam. So yes we do have a valid issue with elected officials that follow a doctrine that does not have any use for America or democracy. Islam does not respect human rights. Islam has a mission to control the world, as did Hitler. We allowed Hitler to fester and grow. We should not make the same mistake twice. Gays will not survive in an Islamic state. So be careful what you wish for, liberals. You just don’t seem to understand that. There is a growing faction that wants to Kill everyone in America and everywhere else that does not follow precisely the Islamic teachings. That group is using ISLAM and twisting it to server their purpose. Bottom line, we are being attacked. They do not want to negotiate. They want us dead. Period. They probably just want better digs. Thats what thousands of years in the desert will do to you. They are all insane. We should just nuke the whole middle east and end the crap. That is exactly what they would do to us.

  162. SB says:

    The tributes were some sort of maritime tax to swell the revenue of a state. Any other interpretation is out of context. Thomas Jefferson paid a one time tribute of $60,000 to get 600 Americans released very much at odds to what Gen.Eaton was doing to get the 600 released. He not only undermined the work of Eaton but Eaton had to escape as he let down all those who helped him. He died a dejected man in US at an early age.
    Regarding George Sales translation of The Quran, it is considered the most nototiorious as that pontif did not do justice to a divine book by intentionally and unintentionally distorting the translation and poisoned our mimds against Islam. Islam has to be studied by what Islam is not by what you see Muslim States inaction that gives rise to terrorism. One must read Martin Ling’s “Muhammed” to get a truer picture of the Moslem prophet.

  163. Me says:

    yyy is a complete moron. Radical terroists who hide behind the Koran and Islam, and call themselves Muslims, do deserve to be rounded up and exterminated. Can anyone possibly find a useful purpose for people who only have the desire to kill innocent civilians in the name of their faith? Anyone? When was the last time innocent civilians were rounded up and exterminated in the name of Christianity? 50 years? 100 years? Yesterday? Well, you can go back for thousands of years and find Muslims killing unarmed civilians in the name of their faith. WTF?

  164. Me says:

    Oh yeah, Thomas Hornby is a freaking idiot also.