Oklahoma lawmaker shows prejudice against Islam

[Wingnut]

Personally, I prefer the Constitution and the Bill or Rights to Sharia Law and fascism. Thats the difference.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut

Personally, I prefer the Constitution and the Bill or Rights to Sharia Law and fascism. Thats the difference.

And so do I. Sharia law is evil. It's treatment of women, it's complete disregard for human rights and freedom of thought. It's the worst form of oppression on Earth.  But we are no danger of Sharia law in the United States, but we are quickly slipping towards an Evangelical Christian Theocracy.

A quiz:      Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Which country decrees that women are property?

Which country allows women to drive and be visible in public?

Which country has a far more oppressive version of Sharia law?

Which country were the majority of the terrorists on 9/11 from?

Which country is more responsible for the funding and teachings that lead to terrorism?

Which country has the strongest democracy outside of Israel in the Middle East?

Which country is our enemy again?

[kakie]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by kakie

What accompanied the Quran was a letter that preached the Quran was the exact word of God. I think this could have been considered offensive.

As for the rest of your post, I don't mind going over every point with you by private message.  There are some misunderstandings there, but the answers would consume this page and the next.

By all means, please send me a PM to let me know what I have misunderstood in the Quran. I've seriously studied this book and the growth of Islam for a couple years now and welcome your input. Are you a Muslim?  Because if you are I have many questions I would like to get answered. I could send them to you.  One burning one is why Palestine is not mentioned in the Quran at all but the land of Israel is.

Islam is concerning to me because is isn't just a religion and their followers can lie per guidance from their prophet in three circumstances.  It would help me if you would include references for me to study.  I look forward to receiving it.

[Wingnut]

quote: But we are no danger of Sharia law in the United States, but we are quickly slipping towards an Evangelical Christian Theocracy.  

A Soft Jihad Grows in Brooklyn
by Aryeh Spero
Posted: 10/25/2007
In Brooklyn, New York, a public school named the Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA) has opened.  Its primary purpose -- demonstrated by its advisory board, its apparent curriculum and the lining of school walls with pictures of Arab figures and heroes, is to teach Arabic and Muslim language and culture and to inculcate the children with radical Islamic ideology.  
One of the school's more notorious pubic supporters is convicted cop-killer and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal.  The school's advisory board includes several imams, one of whom has displayed the Muslim Brotherhood slogan on his mosque's website: "Jihad is our way, and death in the way of Allah is our promised end."
A spokesperson for the school speaks not of the duties of American citizenship but the aspiration towards "global" citizenship.  Perhaps that is why this public school, unlike P.S. 132, calls itself an "international academy."  
Many New Yorkers are appalled that taxpayer money is being used to finance a public school whose purpose will likely advance the Islamic religion and Islamist ethnic identity.  Three local parents, two of whom are teachers, started a grassroots effort called Stop the Madrassa to question this inchoate madrassa disguised as a neutral public school.  
Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has written extensively about KGIA and other such schools now spreading across the country. On the opening day of school, Sept. 4, 2007, civil rights, religious and community leaders held a press conference on the steps of New York's City Hall demanding answers from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Schools Chancellor, Joel Klein. From out of town came Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and attorney Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Center. That day, Citizens for American Values in Public Education was born, created to fight the problem of Islamization in schools across the country.  Immediately a request was made of the Department of Education, under the Freedom of Information Act, as to the curriculum, teachers, lesson plans and textbooks of the school. This is not unusual given that schools --- for reasons of transparency and accreditation – must pre-publicize educational content prior to the school year. Indeed, many are wondering about the use of public money for an institution, such as this, with religious overtones. The response to these legitimate concerns is that those that are asking these questions must be "racists."
For example, Mumia Abu-Jamal asserts: "Racist and right-wing groups and media outlets have demonized the school..."  Councilmember Leticia James talks of "anti-Arab racism ..."   The New York Collective of Radical Educators, in its statement supporting KGIA,  called on "New York City to continue to be a voice in the struggle against anti-Arab/anti-Islamic prejudice..." Even Brooklyn's Borough President, Democrat Marty Markowitz, labeled inquiry into the school "disgraceful, xenophobic, and racist."  
The intent of calling "racist" those who question the school's goals and legitimacy is, no doubt, to silence critics of the school's agenda. This attempt to silence Americans is very similar to CAIR's lawsuit that was brought by Muslim organizations against citizens on an airplane who alerted flight attendants of the fear they felt witnessing highly erratic conduct by six belligerent and provocative imams on a plane.  

What should be every American's right to self-defense, or the right to inform appropriate authorities of  possible harm or danger, has now been characterized by a number of  Muslim organizations as "criminal" and, somehow, a "violation of civil rights" worthy of civil suit. Fortunately, House Republican Steve Pearce introduced the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007, protecting citizens from lawsuits when simply informing authorities of possible danger.  

It appears that yet another strategy for silencing critics of radical Islam is emerging. It is alleging that critics of suspicious Muslim activities are guilty of "stalking," "harassing," or "assaulting." This new mode of attack is, it seems, being hatched here in Brooklyn. Dhabah Almontaser, the school's former principal, recently claimed that those non-Muslim community members who were critical of her stewardship at the school "stalked me wherever I went and verbally assaulted me with vicious anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments."
With her lawyer standing at her side at the press conference in which she made this claim, she sent a veiled threat of legal action against those who have criticized her.   As usual, those merely critical of policies are being defamed as "anti-Muslim" and "viciously anti-Arab."  The fact is that, according to Citizens for American Values in Pubic Education and Stop the Madrassa, no one has followed Almontaser on the street or ever threatened her and there has been no personal harassment or stalking.
Ms. Almontaser knows this. Nonetheless, her hope, and the hope of her attorneys, is that concerned citizens in New York and elsewhere in the country will become intimidated by threats of prolonged and expensive lawsuits if they question alarming Muslim activity.

Almontaser resigned after a firestorm erupted regarding her support for some T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Intifada NYC" that were distributed by AWAAM, one of the organizations affiliated with her. When asked to separate herself from such obvious incitement to violence, she told the New York Post that the slogan merely referred to a "shaking off" and was a chance for young girls to express that they are "shaking off oppression." What "oppression," she did not say. The Post reports that the co-founders of AWAAM, the distributors of the T-shirt are "active in the more militant pro-Palestinian group, al-Awda, whose main U.S. office is in California," and that AWAAM is an active supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas.
In an interview with Amnesty International in Europe in January 2002, Almontaser stated that "I have realized that U.S. foreign policy is racist; in the 'war against terror' people of color are the target." Such attitudes about our country raise legitimate concerns as to whether such a person should be a school principal of children for which the tax system is paying.
Most Americans, except for die-hard liberals and leftists, are prepared to fight the terrorism that we call the "hard jihad."  The left, though, seems unwilling to fight the "soft jihad" assaulting our culture and way of life.  Many Americans who in the past were proud of that unique American penchant for being outspoken and truthful are now being cowed into silence by being called a racist when they are trying to protect themselves and the institutions they admire and love from deliberate damage and obliteration.

Those New Yorkers opposed to this school and those alarmed that such schools may spread across the country are not backing down and apparently will not be intimidated by legal threats. Citizens for American Values president Stuart Kaufman states, "We will not be silenced through threats of lawsuits or being falsely called names such as 'racists' and 'haters' and 'bigots' or other efforts to silence American citizens exercising their right to freedom of speech."  
In addition to the cop-killer, radical imams, and anti-Americans associated with
the school, Stop the Madrassa is also up against the usual multiculturalists who are pushing Islamic schools -- though they themselves are not Muslims -- as a further means to radically transform our culture and diminish the concept of Americanism historically taught in our public schools. The liberal left is a witting collaborator in the soft jihad that has already arrived on our shores and is moving westward, one that wishes to incrementally carve out Islamic principalities, and brazen influence, in our midst.


Sorry for the length.
Just a tidbit of things to come....

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut

quote: But we are no danger of Sharia law in the United States, but we are quickly slipping towards an Evangelical Christian Theocracy.  

A Soft Jihad Grows in Brooklyn
by Aryeh Spero
Posted: 10/25/2007
In Brooklyn, New York, a public school named the Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA) has opened.  Its primary purpose -- demonstrated by its advisory board, its apparent curriculum and the lining of school walls with pictures of Arab figures and heroes, is to teach Arabic and Muslim language and culture and to inculcate the children with radical Islamic ideology.  
One of the school's more notorious pubic supporters is convicted cop-killer and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal.  The school's advisory board includes several imams, one of whom has displayed the Muslim Brotherhood slogan on his mosque's website: "Jihad is our way, and death in the way of Allah is our promised end."
A spokesperson for the school speaks not of the duties of American citizenship but the aspiration towards "global" citizenship.  Perhaps that is why this public school, unlike P.S. 132, calls itself an "international academy."  
Many New Yorkers are appalled that taxpayer money is being used to finance a public school whose purpose will likely advance the Islamic religion and Islamist ethnic identity.  Three local parents, two of whom are teachers, started a grassroots effort called Stop the Madrassa to question this inchoate madrassa disguised as a neutral public school.  
Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has written extensively about KGIA and other such schools now spreading across the country. On the opening day of school, Sept. 4, 2007, civil rights, religious and community leaders held a press conference on the steps of New York's City Hall demanding answers from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Schools Chancellor, Joel Klein. From out of town came Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and attorney Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Center. That day, Citizens for American Values in Public Education was born, created to fight the problem of Islamization in schools across the country.  Immediately a request was made of the Department of Education, under the Freedom of Information Act, as to the curriculum, teachers, lesson plans and textbooks of the school. This is not unusual given that schools --- for reasons of transparency and accreditation – must pre-publicize educational content prior to the school year. Indeed, many are wondering about the use of public money for an institution, such as this, with religious overtones. The response to these legitimate concerns is that those that are asking these questions must be "racists."
For example, Mumia Abu-Jamal asserts: "Racist and right-wing groups and media outlets have demonized the school..."  Councilmember Leticia James talks of "anti-Arab racism ..."   The New York Collective of Radical Educators, in its statement supporting KGIA,  called on "New York City to continue to be a voice in the struggle against anti-Arab/anti-Islamic prejudice..." Even Brooklyn's Borough President, Democrat Marty Markowitz, labeled inquiry into the school "disgraceful, xenophobic, and racist."  
The intent of calling "racist" those who question the school's goals and legitimacy is, no doubt, to silence critics of the school's agenda. This attempt to silence Americans is very similar to CAIR's lawsuit that was brought by Muslim organizations against citizens on an airplane who alerted flight attendants of the fear they felt witnessing highly erratic conduct by six belligerent and provocative imams on a plane.  

What should be every American's right to self-defense, or the right to inform appropriate authorities of  possible harm or danger, has now been characterized by a number of  Muslim organizations as "criminal" and, somehow, a "violation of civil rights" worthy of civil suit. Fortunately, House Republican Steve Pearce introduced the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007, protecting citizens from lawsuits when simply informing authorities of possible danger.  

It appears that yet another strategy for silencing critics of radical Islam is emerging. It is alleging that critics of suspicious Muslim activities are guilty of "stalking," "harassing," or "assaulting." This new mode of attack is, it seems, being hatched here in Brooklyn. Dhabah Almontaser, the school's former principal, recently claimed that those non-Muslim community members who were critical of her stewardship at the school "stalked me wherever I went and verbally assaulted me with vicious anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments."
With her lawyer standing at her side at the press conference in which she made this claim, she sent a veiled threat of legal action against those who have criticized her.   As usual, those merely critical of policies are being defamed as "anti-Muslim" and "viciously anti-Arab."  The fact is that, according to Citizens for American Values in Pubic Education and Stop the Madrassa, no one has followed Almontaser on the street or ever threatened her and there has been no personal harassment or stalking.
Ms. Almontaser knows this. Nonetheless, her hope, and the hope of her attorneys, is that concerned citizens in New York and elsewhere in the country will become intimidated by threats of prolonged and expensive lawsuits if they question alarming Muslim activity.

Almontaser resigned after a firestorm erupted regarding her support for some T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Intifada NYC" that were distributed by AWAAM, one of the organizations affiliated with her. When asked to separate herself from such obvious incitement to violence, she told the New York Post that the slogan merely referred to a "shaking off" and was a chance for young girls to express that they are "shaking off oppression." What "oppression," she did not say. The Post reports that the co-founders of AWAAM, the distributors of the T-shirt are "active in the more militant pro-Palestinian group, al-Awda, whose main U.S. office is in California," and that AWAAM is an active supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas.
In an interview with Amnesty International in Europe in January 2002, Almontaser stated that "I have realized that U.S. foreign policy is racist; in the 'war against terror' people of color are the target." Such attitudes about our country raise legitimate concerns as to whether such a person should be a school principal of children for which the tax system is paying.
Most Americans, except for die-hard liberals and leftists, are prepared to fight the terrorism that we call the "hard jihad."  The left, though, seems unwilling to fight the "soft jihad" assaulting our culture and way of life.  Many Americans who in the past were proud of that unique American penchant for being outspoken and truthful are now being cowed into silence by being called a racist when they are trying to protect themselves and the institutions they admire and love from deliberate damage and obliteration.

Those New Yorkers opposed to this school and those alarmed that such schools may spread across the country are not backing down and apparently will not be intimidated by legal threats. Citizens for American Values president Stuart Kaufman states, "We will not be silenced through threats of lawsuits or being falsely called names such as 'racists' and 'haters' and 'bigots' or other efforts to silence American citizens exercising their right to freedom of speech."  
In addition to the cop-killer, radical imams, and anti-Americans associated with
the school, Stop the Madrassa is also up against the usual multiculturalists who are pushing Islamic schools -- though they themselves are not Muslims -- as a further means to radically transform our culture and diminish the concept of Americanism historically taught in our public schools. The liberal left is a witting collaborator in the soft jihad that has already arrived on our shores and is moving westward, one that wishes to incrementally carve out Islamic principalities, and brazen influence, in our midst.


Sorry for the length.
Just a tidbit of things to come....

Here's a tid bit, you want to stop crap like that?

Follow the money and it goes to Saudi Arabia, not Iran and Iraq.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

If you call it "Muslim-American Council", you'd have to include Muslims from all over the planet (like Indonesia and Nigeria), and exclude large swaths of the Middle East and the Near East.  You'd kick Zoroastrians, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other religion out automatically.

If you call it "Arab-American Council", you exclude Iranians, Turks, Pakistanis, Afghans, Israelis, Kurds, Armenians....then you include a bunch of African countries like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, etc.

And lastly, their stated goals have nothing to do with religion (Islam, Christianity, Jewish, or other), only culture, ethnicity.  Their scope is much broader than religion.

There is no one term that actually describes the Near and Middle East.  Throwing them under the generic term "Ethnic" seems quite reasonable.

I'd like to think you're right, but their stated goals don't match up to their actions or membership. Every public action this council has taken so far has concerned the Islamic faith -- encouraging schools to grant excused absences for Muslim holy days, asking for rebuttal time on OETA to the PBS series "America at a Crossroads" because, according to the council's chairman, "we thought there were a couple of segments that did not put Islam in a positive light," and now passing out Qurans at the state legislature. While those actions would be reasonable for a private organization representing Oklahoma Muslims, they don't suggest a government-sponsored council seeking to represent the diversity of religions in the Middle East.

Is there even one Israeli Jew, one Lebanese or Armenian or Syrian or Palestinian or Coptic (Egyptian) Christian, one Iranian Baha'i or Zoroastrian on the Governor's Ethnic-American Advisory Council? I haven't found one yet. Where I've been able to find some indication on the web of a member's religion, it's always been Muslim. Oklahoma has a sizable Lebanese Christian community that dates back prior to statehood, but I don't see any Saieds, Bayouths, Besharas, Eliases, or Courys on the list of council members.

Could it be that the Governor wanted to create a Muslim advisory council, perhaps at the request of a supporter, but thought it would cause trouble to come right out and call it that?

Good luck finding a real live Zoroastrian in this state.  We might have a population of, I don't know, less than 10?  If we're lucky.  Or a Copt, or a Baha'i, there are a few Baha'i.

It's possible, no doubt.  Some people would have a hissy-fit if it was called "Muslim-American" Council.  Some already have.  That's why your bringing it up.

Still, for it to be a Muslim Council, you'd have to include regions that are purposefully excluded.  As far as Middle East/Near East, Egypt is disputable, beyond Egypt is normally out though around half of Africa is Muslim.

And you'd have to include Muslims that would be better covered under the umbrella "Asian" or "SE Asian", like Malaysia, China, India, Indonesia, etc.

It's not inclusive enough to be strictly defined Muslim, or exclusive enough to be strictly defined Muslim.   It only covers a defined area.  The majority of which, happen to be Muslim.

Not that it matters, if the Latin Council was able to put out a Catholic Centennial Bible I wouldn't be complaining.  Of course, neither would politicians, even though some would consider that possibility.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut
       'If you choose to live here (in America)... you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam,' he said. Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant, he said. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth, he said." (Lisa Gardiner, San Ramon Valley Herald, 'American Muslim leader urges faithful to spread Islam's message,' July 4, 1998)

And how this is different than Evangelical Christianity's effort to convert and "save" everyone in this nation?

Evangelicals and their war on the first amendment, gays, abortion, evolution and any science that conflicts with what is in the Bible. Evangelicals and their war on public schools and any school whose teaching is not based on the Bible. Their war to take over the Supreme Court.

Their war in fact on anyone in public life that does not believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, which correct me if I am wrong, that would be the part that is so offensive about this gift of the Koran, that the giver believes it to be the inerrant word of God. It's evangelical Christians that are a danger to our freedom of religion in this country, not Muslims.

There is one difference in reference to a paragraph from Wingnut you didn't quote about CAIR.  Generally Christian religious leaders don't support asshat dictators (Khomeini) and defend the actions of terrorists (WTC '93).  I don't recall hearing a single Christian pastor publicly defend abortion clinic bombings, shootings, or arson attacks- which is terrorism.  The public comments I heard were along the lines of: "Abortion is an abomination, but there is no justification for killing and maiming others to prevent it."

Take a look at what happens when Islam becomes the dominant religion in a country like Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan.  You have plenty of religious freedom so long as you are a Muslim.  I'm not saying that is an imminent reality in America.  I believe Islamic influence on government needs to be watched as close as evangelical Christianity.

America has always had close ties to Christianity because it was founded by protestant Christians.  Many principles of our laws came from Biblical scripture or from the British Common Law which also has roots in Christian principles.  However, there has at least been tolerance for other religions from our government, something which is lacking in non-secular Muslim governments- there is no comparison.

America was founded in a large part on religious freedom.  It bothers me for any single religion to try to influence itself on our government.  I don't like the far Christian right trying to assert itself into our laws and government through the front door and I don't like Islam trying to do it through the back door.

The ACLU and others have done a pretty good job of making sure Christian prayer was taken out of public schools, the ten commandments has been removed from courthouse lawns, and that no expression of the Christian faith is permissable in these places.

Yet, there are instances right now of Islam recieving preferential treatment in public schools with the installation of prayer rooms, foot baths, and mandated prayer breaks for their Muslim students.  I don't ever recall hearing of public school cafeterias having a kosher requirement for their Jewish students, yet there are now accomodations for Muslim student's dietary needs in the Detroit and Dearborn area.

"Barry Lynn, of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, says however that the law is murky on these expressions of faith. And the American Civil Liberties Union says overt religious symbols like crucifixes are not legal, but whether Muslim foot baths and prayer rugs fall into that category is not clear."

So we have a clear understanding that the cross is verboten (as I would assume the star of David is as well), but a very tepid interpretation when it comes to Islamic symbolism and rituals.

Source

Honestly I don't see an assault on the First Amendment by evangelicals.  They exist in this country by virtue of the First Amendment.

"Well the evangelical Christians are doing it" is a truly naive justification for allowing any other religion to silenty be allowed preferential treatment in our communities and schools.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I don't ever recall hearing of public school cafeterias having a kosher requirement for their Jewish students, yet there are now accomodations for Muslim student's dietary needs in the Detroit and Dearborn area.

Here's one.

http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=2973

I'm sure there's more, but certain people are far more interested in focusing on certain groups.

Dietary is fairly important, for years schools I went to offered fish on Friday's for Catholics.  If you don't have dietary restrictions, like those swine-eating Protestants, you really don't have anything to complain about.  Swine-eaters. *shakes fist*

But seriously, I love pigs.  Especially eating them.

Not that we need to get further sidetracked with events and places and foods exclusively used to stereotype.  Let's move on.  Shall we?

[RecycleMichael]

What is it with religion and restricting food?

No meat on Friday for Catholics...Jews can't eat pork, Hinduism and no eating beef...and don't get me started on fasting for Ramadan.

Why does God care about what and when I eat?

Is there any religion that prohibits eating broccoli, spinach and otherwise healthy food? I would probably tithe to them...

[MichaelC]

You know, maybe I can't quite get past it, but I was reading that article on the Hebrew-English magnet school, and I got to thinking why there couldn't be a Christian Magnet school.  And the article actually explains it quite well.

It boils down to culture versus religion.  Religious schools can't be publicly funded, but a school can be publicly funded and designed to fit a culture that already exists in an area.  It's a fine line probably, but still.  Everyone kind of knows that there are cultural details around groups that are Catholic, or groups that are primarily Jewish, or primarily Muslim, or primarily Chinese.  What would a cultural, non-religious, "christian" school look like?  Would it look almost exactly like the vast majority of public schools?  Is there a such thing as a "christian" culture, and if so what are the agreeable details?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut
       'If you choose to live here (in America)... you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam,' he said. Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant, he said. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth, he said." (Lisa Gardiner, San Ramon Valley Herald, 'American Muslim leader urges faithful to spread Islam's message,' July 4, 1998)

And how this is different than Evangelical Christianity's effort to convert and "save" everyone in this nation?

Evangelicals and their war on the first amendment, gays, abortion, evolution and any science that conflicts with what is in the Bible. Evangelicals and their war on public schools and any school whose teaching is not based on the Bible. Their war to take over the Supreme Court.

Their war in fact on anyone in public life that does not believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, which correct me if I am wrong, that would be the part that is so offensive about this gift of the Koran, that the giver believes it to be the inerrant word of God. It's evangelical Christians that are a danger to our freedom of religion in this country, not Muslims.

There is one difference in reference to a paragraph from Wingnut you didn't quote about CAIR.  Generally Christian religious leaders don't support asshat dictators (Khomeini) and defend the actions of terrorists (WTC '93).  I don't recall hearing a single Christian pastor publicly defend abortion clinic bombings, shootings, or arson attacks- which is terrorism.  The public comments I heard were along the lines of: "Abortion is an abomination, but there is no justification for killing and maiming others to prevent it."

Take a look at what happens when Islam becomes the dominant religion in a country like Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan.  You have plenty of religious freedom so long as you are a Muslim.  I'm not saying that is an imminent reality in America.  I believe Islamic influence on government needs to be watched as close as evangelical Christianity.

America has always had close ties to Christianity because it was founded by protestant Christians.  Many principles of our laws came from Biblical scripture or from the British Common Law which also has roots in Christian principles.  However, there has at least been tolerance for other religions from our government, something which is lacking in non-secular Muslim governments- there is no comparison.

America was founded in a large part on religious freedom.  It bothers me for any single religion to try to influence itself on our government.  I don't like the far Christian right trying to assert itself into our laws and government through the front door and I don't like Islam trying to do it through the back door.

The ACLU and others have done a pretty good job of making sure Christian prayer was taken out of public schools, the ten commandments has been removed from courthouse lawns, and that no expression of the Christian faith is permissable in these places.

Yet, there are instances right now of Islam recieving preferential treatment in public schools with the installation of prayer rooms, foot baths, and mandated prayer breaks for their Muslim students.  I don't ever recall hearing of public school cafeterias having a kosher requirement for their Jewish students, yet there are now accomodations for Muslim student's dietary needs in the Detroit and Dearborn area.

"Barry Lynn, of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, says however that the law is murky on these expressions of faith. And the American Civil Liberties Union says overt religious symbols like crucifixes are not legal, but whether Muslim foot baths and prayer rugs fall into that category is not clear."

So we have a clear understanding that the cross is verboten (as I would assume the star of David is as well), but a very tepid interpretation when it comes to Islamic symbolism and rituals.

Source

Honestly I don't see an assault on the First Amendment by evangelicals.  They exist in this country by virtue of the First Amendment.

"Well the evangelical Christians are doing it" is a truly naive justification for allowing any other religion to silenty be allowed preferential treatment in our communities and schools.

I don't disagree that radical Islam is very dangerous, or that it's far worse than radical Christianity. It's just that radical Christianity is a bigger danger to us.

And, Radical Islam becomes more dangerous here when we treat all Muslims here as radical and when a state senator comes out and basically calls all Muslims murderers, he is helping to make all Muslims radical by his treatment of them.

That is the point. I would bet money that he is one of those Evangelical Christians that I have been talking about so here again is another area where "radical" Christians are dangerous to US in their treatment of other religions.

[Wingnut]

From the text of the article...

quote: Serious concerns were raised over whether the school would be sponsoring religion, breaching the constitutional line between church and state.  

Where is that in the Constitution?
I'm sorry but, the ACLU holds no water with me. They are the most anti-American organization there is. It's founder Roger Baldwin was an avowed communist who stated that "Communism (was) the goal".
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1579
//[url]http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6145

There is story after story about how the ACLU has taken up the cause to give special rights to those that want to overthrow our system of gov't, even on the taxpayers dime.
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/3667
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070710c.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AlanSears/2007/06/16/the_aclu_never_forgets_its_pro-communist_roots

We live in a country with Constitutionanly protected freedoms. I have no use for communism, socialism, nazism, or stalinism, and the death and oppression that goes with it. No one can say that hitler's goal wasn't world domination. That's what our boys fought against and died for in WW2. I don't think we need another facist organization to come along in the name of "peace" that wants to dominate the U.S. and the world.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6386

[guido911]

SWAKE: "I don't disagree that radical Islam is very dangerous, or that it's far worse than radical Christianity. It's just that radical Christianity is a bigger danger to us."

What absolute, blame America first b*llsh*t:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[rwarn17588]

Wingnut wrote:

We live in a country with Constitutionanly protected freedoms.

<end clip>

Which is why you ought to be supportive of the ACLU instead of deriding it. The ACLU has been defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for decades. It deserves praise, not scorn.

Back to topic: Nancy Riley got a scathing e-mail from me yesterday. We'll see whether she explains herself.

[rwarn17588]

<guido wrote:

SWAKE: "I don't disagree that radical Islam is very dangerous, or that it's far worse than radical Christianity. It's just that radical Christianity is a bigger danger to us."

What absolute, blame America first b*llsh*t:

<end clip>

I agree with swake. Christian fundamentalists are in a far, far bigger sphere of political influence than Muslims ever will be. If they set their sights on usurping portions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you betcha they're a bigger threat. That's obvious.