Posted on 12/15/2006 10:13:58 AM PST by drmarc
It’s written in the text of founding documents, and engraved on our nation’s greatest monuments — so why are classrooms, courtrooms, and even our government, battling to ban God from public life?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
"They through in a trick answer to confuse you."
I thought it was a trick question. Their "correct" answer proves otherwise.
later read/pingout.
They fixed it, it's "catholic" now.
Maybe they fixed it. The question now asks which section mentions "religion", not "God".
I only got 6 out of 10, although I should have had 7, but the picture they put next to the question made me think twice about one answer and I changed it to the wrong answer.
9/10. i didn't know a gutenberg was housed at LoC, i thought it would be at the smithsonian.
The second most popular denomination is Presbyterian.
:>)
You, sir, are a fool. I'm glad the founders of our nation were made of sterner stuff than you.
That was quick. Good!
Lincoln?
"I'm glad the founders of our nation were made of sterner stuff than you."
It is quite possible that they would have used stricter, or even different language had they ever realized Islam would actually take root here.
I'd love to call up the ghost of Jefferson and listen to any new thoughts he might have on the subject.
Yep.
Now there are those, some of whom are on this thread, who would throw away all the sacrifices that have preserved our freedom simply because their fear outweighs their love of liberty. I don't want them to prevail.
And while I am normally hesitant to quote-mine to prove a point, you *did* bring up the question of what Thomas Jefferson would have thought about the situation:
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
i got 9 right
I appreciate your reply. I would ask that you reread that same document and then make a determination as to whether or not Islam, as per the Qur'an and the Hadiths, as well as what history now knows of Muhammad would be considered by Jefferson to be "the wretched purpose of changing this master for that."
His Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush (Washington, April 21, 1803) is most revealing in regard to his personal religious beliefs, as well as to the fact that he considered himself a Christian in the "true" sense; not that he believed in the mysticism surrounding the life of Christ, but that he thought Jesus brought to mankind the most important moral teachings of anyone in the history of mankind.
If one were to compare his thoughts on Jesus to his limited thoughts on Muhammad, it is easy to see that he considered them polar opposites. I don't think he was particularly crazy about paying jiyzah to the Barbary pirates either.
Then there is Samuel Johnston who said "Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves."
Scary thought, in my opinion.
Patrick Henry, of course, was opposed to Jefferson and afraid the Virginia legisture could be filled with atheists or Mohameddans who were unfriendly to liberty or to the morals of a free country.
John Quincy Adams was probably the most outspoken in regard to Islam:
"…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God…the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force."
He also made this comment: "The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute."
Joseph Story said "“ At the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration [i.e., the First Amendment], the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.” He could not have made a similar statement in regard to Islam.
So yes, the founders lived in dangerous times and chose to protect religious freedom, but I maintain that their knowledge of Islam was limited and that few really thought America would be beseiged by it, although some did state such fears.
Islam is not a religion in the same way Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are religions. It is an ideological state with its own system of justice. It is incompatible with our Bill of Rights and with our Constitution.
beseiged=besieged
I believe that your quotes indicate that some of the founders were very aware of Islam, they had some very strong feelings about its merit, and they *still* chose to protect religious freedom. Are you really that frightened of Muslims that you would throw away our freedoms like that?
So you would have us institute a religious test to hold office? How exactly would that work?
Would the local city council be forced to swear that they do not believe Muhammad was the prophet of God? Would our state representatives have to take a lie-detector test to make sure they don't pray to Allah? Would we raid the houses of our congressman to find Korans? Would we have secret police following judges home to make sure they don't stop at the mosque?
If you think there is any way to administer a religious test for public office that doesn't involve at least these types of measures, I would be interested to hear of them.
Being "aware" of Islam and being knowledgeable about it are two different things. As is having an educated, reasonable fear of Islam, and being "frightened of Muslims." What does frightens me is the lack of knowledge about Islam in this country and the ensuing sheep-like acceptance by non-Muslims of Islam as inherently peaceful. It is not. I suggested I would be interested in seeing how/if Jefferson might change specific language used in the Constitution if he had the information on Islam and the life of Muhammad available to him that is available to us today. This is not to say I believe in the Constitution as a living, breathing document. I do not. It is purely hypothetical on my part and I look to his many letters, etc. for an indication of how he would react.
Are we to encourage a cult that has been at war within and without for 1400 years? There is little to distinguish Islamic ideology from other more recent bizarre cults other than the number of followers. It is a supremacist ideology that lends itself easily to violence because Muhammad was a violent man.
A religious test? No. Education about the truth of Muhammad, and of Islam as a supremacist political, cultural, (and military where possible) cultish ideology which masquerades since the time of Muhammad as religion? Yes.
Why is our Supreme Court building adorned by a sculpture of Muhammad? His legal system - shar'ia? Does this mean Americans should revere and welcome those who follow the laws of Muhammad? If Muslims amass in one area of the country, elect their own representatives and begin to use shar'ia, does that, in effect, create a state within a state? They are trying to do this in Canada and in Britain now, as well as many other countries, and have seen some amount of success.
There was a case 2 weeks ago in Grand Rapids, Michigan where a Muslim woman complained that she was not allowed to ride the bus because she was wearing the hiqab. The Rapids bus system changed their security rule of not allowing masks to allow her to ride the bus because she is Muslim. This is happening all over this country. Special rules for Muslims.
Perhaps we need to demand Qur'anic reform, although having painted themselves into a corner by insisting the book is the word of allah, rather than that of Muhammad, it is difficult to see that happening anytime soon.
Something needs to be done. I don't have the answer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop asking the questions. The future of our country is at risk.
Mark [Steyn] will be taking part in the documentary One Nation Under God on Fox News tonight[Saturday the 16th] at 12 midnight Eastern/9pm Pacific, repeated tomorrow at 4pm Eastern/1pm Pacific
Thanks. I watched it. It was excellent. But for one statement by Newt about religious diversity at the end. I just finished an email to him congratulating him on the special, but spoke to him about my concern. Steyn was great as always.
You know me not. To call one a fool that you know not certainly makes you look like a fool. Go in what peace you may find.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.