Thread: A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible

I'm sure that you find that a convincing argument, but it ceases to hold water when you consider that the same men who added that provision to the Constitution and who we know to have been well familiar with Islam (which was at the time called Muhammatism) saw absolutely no problem with requiring elected officials to take their oath with a hand on the Bible. So clearly their intent was not what you would like to pretend that it was.

Can you provide a citation to back up that assertion?

What I posted was taken directly from the charter that formed our central government. See for yourself here: http://www.archives.gov/national-archiv ... cript.html

Or are you arguing that was was written in plain English was not what the men who wrote and signed the document ment?

if he swears on the koran is he vowing to carry out killing all Christians as 'his' religon preaches?

Interesting, and if someone swears on the Bible is he vowing to kill all witches as "his" religion preaches?

andyt: No nihilism here, the passage I quoted was verbage from one of my fellows on another forum, and as I stated it matter not WHAT the oath is sworn on, what DOES matter is the upholding of that oath. The oath is a solemn vow, the giving of ones word to carry out ones duties in office.

All the contention and bickering about the possibility that SOMEONE will not swear an oath on the text of your choice of faiths does looks to be for naught, since in all the information I can find about the swearing in of Congress, it is done en masse with NO books of ANY faith.

Originally Posted by Sindawe

I'm sure that you find that a convincing argument, but it ceases to hold water when you consider that the same men who added that provision to the Constitution and who we know to have been well familiar with Islam (which was at the time called Muhammatism) saw absolutely no problem with requiring elected officials to take their oath with a hand on the Bible. So clearly their intent was not what you would like to pretend that it was.

Can you provide a citation to back up that assertion?

What I posted was taken directly from the charter that formed our central government. See for yourself here: http://www.archives.gov/national-archiv ... cript.html

Or are you arguing that was was written in plain English was not what the men who wrote and signed the document ment?

Don't play stupid, Sindawe. EVERY PRESIDENT, including Thomas Jefferson, the Father of the Constitution, took his oath with his hand on the Bible. Every one of the Founding Fathers bowed his head in prayer at the opening of each session of Congress. As a matter of fact, after a contentious start that appeared doomed to failure, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were persuaded by none other than Benjamin Franklin to start each meeting with a prayer.

Your ignorance of history is not my problem, Sindawe, but I will not humor your ridiculous revisionism. And don't start in about "separation of church and state," because that was not an operating principle of this government until Ku Klux Klansman turned Supreme Court justice Hugo Black introduced that bit of anti-religion just over half a century ago. Prior to that, court decisions, including Supreme Court decisions, routinely made reference to biblical principles and even specified that the nation and its laws were predicated in Christianity. Specifically:

"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion and all denominations of Christian are placed upon the same equal footing." - U.S. Supreme Court 1796 (Ruggles v. Winemiller)

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - U.S. Supreme Court 1892 (Church of Holy Trinity v. U.S.)

"What ever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government." - U.S. Supreme Court 1811 (People v. Ruggles)

Speculation has ranged from that one or another was a forgery to the more probable explanation thatthere were actually two versions, one of which was meant for the eyes of the Muslim Barbary Pirates and another of which was meant for the eyes of the folks back home, who would have bristled at such verbiage.

Thanks. A talk show host seemed to duck the mention of this document today and the call went away.

The need to appease the Muslims of Barbary would be consistent with what we're seeing in the world presently.

CrocketsGhost:I see you have yet to support the following assertion "... saw absolutely no problem with requiring elected officials to take their oath with a hand on the Bible.". Where pray tell is this codified into law? I don't find it in the Constitution, nor do I find it in the searches of legislation of the era, nor in the CFR.

Oh, and the topic of this thread was about CONGRESSMEN being sworn into office, NOT Presidents.

Your ignorance of history is not my problem, Sindawe, but I will not humor your ridiculous revisionism. And don't start in about "separation of church and state,"

My ignorance of history? BWAHAHAHAHAHA Perhaps you should do a bit of research on the subjects of Deism and the Founder Fathers, you just might learn something. And just WHERE did I mention the "separation of church and state"?

After reading and participating in this thread, I have to wonder if maybe the Reconquista goons and their misguided supporters are correct about some folks in this movement to prevent the destruction of the Republic. This forum looks to have collected a goodly number of narrow minded bigots who can't stand the idea that somebody might worship a different flavor of the divine, yet still be a loyal and true American.

In any case, I'm done with it. Most of the people here on ALIPAC are decent, honest folk. But the majority who've spoken on THIS topic have more akin with the old bat I ran into at the last demonstration I attended here in Colorado. She wanted to prattle on about how the "mud people" and Jews were going to be the destruction of the "white race", and how the "true humans" had to band together and wipe out the untermenchen for their own survival.

I don't need that bilge in my life, be it from fools on the street or same on the 'Net. ALIPAC, thank you for your efforts at turning back the invasion of illegal aliens and for your hospitality on this site. I wish you and your rational fellows success and long life in America. However, I'll not be back. Please close/delete my account here and remove me from ALIPACs email list.

I'll need a long hot shower to get the poisonous stench of bigotry off....

I'll need a long hot shower to get the poisonous stench of bigotry off....

Funny how name calling is all some people have.

After reading and participating in this thread, I have to wonder if maybe the Reconquista goons and their misguided supporters are correct about some folks in this movement to prevent the destruction of the Republic.

Hmmm, At least we know who you align with.

This forum looks to have collected a goodly number of narrow minded bigots who can't stand the idea that somebody might worship a different flavor of the divine, yet still be a loyal and true American.

Must be reading a different thread. I haven't seen or read anybody say that.

You do not have to be a devout Christian to appreciate traditional American values.

This seems to elude you.

I do so love the smell of ANIMOSITY in the morning :P

Rule Violations

by

CrocketsGhost

&

Sindawe

-----------------------------------

I have just read through this entire thread. It is a very interesting topic that many of our board members feel passionately, but I note that it is NOT our issue of immigration.

EVERYONE here must keep in mind that while our board allows a lot of related debates around immigration, ALIPAC's goal is to unify and maintain a broad coalition of people that want to fight illegal immigration.

To accomplish this, we have a firm set of rules to facilitate civilized debate while allowing many views (often contrary) to be expressed and represented in our Discussion groups.

The first rule violations in this thread are by CrocketsGhost posted Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:50 am

Don't play stupid, Sindawe.

and

Your ignorance of history is not my problem, Sindawe, but I will not humor your ridiculous revisionism.

Crocket, you have accused Sindawe of either being stupid or engaging in an act or false representation of his views. You have called him ignorant and it is not up to you what will be 'humored' on these boards. Sindawe was citing his sources and expressing his opinion in a respectful way and you responded with attacks on his character and insults.

This is a clear violation of ALIPAC's rule #2

2. Conflicts: No personal attacks, threatening language, or personal information on the board. Calling other users names or attacking others will not be tolerated. Don't call other users names or apply labels to them that you can't substantiate (See Bayourod).

-------

The rules were then violated again by Sindawe in the post above placed Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:05 am

Sindawe wrote:

forum looks to have collected a goodly number of narrow minded bigots

and

But the majority who've spoken on THIS topic have more akin with the old bat I ran into at the last demonstration I attended here in Colorado. She wanted to prattle on about how the "mud people" and Jews were going to be the destruction of the "white race", and how the "true humans" had to band together and wipe out the untermenchen for their own survival.

and

I'll need a long hot shower to get the poisonous stench of bigotry off

Sindawe's comments are a violation of rule #2 and rule #1

NO RACISM AND NO RACE BAITING RACE BAITING= "ACCUSING OTHERS OF BEING RACIST without evidence IN AN EFFORT TO SILENCE OR LOWER THE TONE OF THE DEBATE"

I find it highly disappointing that two long term participants on this site have decided to throw our rules to the wind and engage in these violations.

Sindawe, you are welcome to take your marbles and go home if you like although I am a bit surprised to see you act so thin skinned on our boards.

Regardless of what each poster decides to do, this matter will now be placed before the ALIPAC Moderators for a decision.

Our rules also state that

Those that break our board rules may be warned, temporarily suspended, or permanently banned. No participant that has been active with ALIPAC with over 300 posts and three months of participation will be banned without a full meeting and vote of the the ALIPAC Moderators.

I am locking this thread and placing this matter before our Moderators and Admins to decide what measures are an appropriate response. The decision will be theirs.

We are a nation of laws and this is an open source forum with rules and processes. When the rules, which were created by the people that use these boards, are disregarded then our efforts can be damaged.

William