[Auntie Dem]

Since you mention it the "one wife at a time" rule seems to be derived completely from Judeo-Christian principles.. for which I can find no scriptural basis.

You don't remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and many other of the patriarchs had more than one wife at a time? Even David's multiple wives were approved until he went over the edge with Bathsheba.

I never said it was GOOD constitutional law, just that it was constitutional. That is why I referred to the decision as a petard. The logic should blow up in the faces of those who supported the polygamy decision, but do not support the same reasoning against muslims. Who, BTW, are NOT innocent, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. If you don't want the same logic applied to muslims then get the ball rolling to overturn the polygamy decision.

We already have too many double standards pertaining to religion. Such as the leftist ACLU promoting Islamic presentations and prayers in public schools, but banning Christian?

[Jhoffa_]

You don't remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and many other of the patriarchs had more than one wife at a time? Even David's multiple wives were approved until he went over the edge with Bathsheba.

Oh, but I do remember.. all too well.

The only prohibition I am aware of is for specific church leaders, period. In fact, I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

Regardless, this decision does in no way authorize the Federal Government to act against American Muslims because of their faith alone.

It has no bearing on the matter at hand whatsoever.

John Ashcroft was quoted earlier in the thread.. Go read what he said and you will see that there is not even a desire on behalf of fedgov to intervene here.

It's entirely inconsequential.

[Odile]

Dear Auntie Dem,

How I'd love to be able to hire you as my personal advocate! Your logic is impeccable -- your USE of it masterful.

To myself I questioned your application of the word "petard" earlier on this long, tedious thread. I thought you must have meant "canard," which, as you know, means a false story, an unsubstantiated rumor or a hoax -- something which CERTAINLY might apply quite easily to anything GOOD written about Islam and its barbaric and maniacal adherents.

"Petard" means an explosive device. To be "hoist in one's own petard" means you are caught in a trap of your own devising. I'm not quite sure that evolved from the explosive device, but it's a well-established idiom. I can see now what you meant when you said that a certain false argument blew up in someone's face.

Both these words seem to indicate the use of some sort of deliberate strategy designed to gain advantage over an opponent either through subterfuge or direct attack. Both fit the Muslim situation very well I should think.

Please forgive this digression. Words have always fascinated me, and I've never given up the search to find ways to use them ever more precisely.

Thank you for being such a big help in indicating to whatever readers there be the falseness and complete lack of logic in one incredibly enacious troll's incessant drumbeat in support of an egregiously unworthy cause.