Saudi Money Influencing American Schools?
Millions of children in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere have been taught hatred for the West in Saudi-funded Madrassas, religious schools.
In America we're told we have separation of church and state. But in December 2003 frontpagemagzine.com helped break the story of how public school kids in the United States were being taught to celebrate the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, to pretend they were making the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca, and even to memorize Islamic prayers to Allah. And this was happening in taxpayer-funded classrooms where Jewish and Christian celebrations and prayers are strictly prohibited.
How did such things get into American public education and our children's classrooms?
The March 10 New York Sun reports one possible answer. Columbia University in New York City is a major center for the training of America's teachers and shaping of America's public school curricula and textbooks. And Columbia University, Sun investigative reporter Jacob Gershman discovered, since at least 2002 has been receiving vast amounts of money from Saudi Arabia that may have been used in part for an "outreach" program to train teachers how to have more "sensitivity" to Islam and to the Saudi point of view on the Middle East.
A Columbia spokesperson "would not disclose" exactly how this money was spent, The Sun reported.
26 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
The Saudis are behind more pure evil than any other country on earth with the possible exception of North Korea.
Saudi citizens provide a huge amount of financial support to terrorists. Long before Saddam sent money to the families of homicide bombers the Saudis were running TV telethons (terror-thons?) to raise money for those very same families.
Yet despite this, Bush refers to the Saudis as "our allies" in the War on Terror and then invades Iraq. If you want to break the back of the terrorists you have to attack the spine not the extremities.
Saudi Arabia has not been in a war in more than half a century and their army is a joke. Their citizens are lazy, ignorant and disarmed, a more suitable populace for occupation could hardly be found. If a taste of freedom thrilled the Iraqis then the Saudis should be in a state of pure ecstasy.
So here's a question for all you loyal Bushies - Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia seize the oil wells and run them night and day until oil hit $20 per barrel? That would drive Iran, Iraq, Yemen and the rest of the terrorist homes into bankruptcy effectively defunding terrorists around the world. Buck a gallon gasoline would shutup the Europeans too.
Oil money can't find its way to terrorists (or Columbia University for that matter) if there isn't any oil money.
If you haven't figured out yet why Saudi Arabia gets a pass then consider two more pieces of information.
1) Bashar Assad is the new poster boy for terrorism. Assad's Syria is, as was Iraq, a Baathist totalitarian nightmare. Certainly, the Syrian people, and the world in general, would be better off without him but is he really the biggest terrorist threat? The noise from the administration suggests that Assad could be the next target.
2) Suddenly, Condoleeza Rice supports the European negotiations with Iran which involve "financial incentives" (that is a euphemism for "tribute") effectively removing pressure from the mullahs. There is not now, nor has there ever been any Bush support for the Iranian rebels despite the mullah's attempts at nuclear blackmail.
Still stumped? Last hint: The answer isn't "Oil"
"Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia seize the oil wells and run them night and day until oil hit $20 per barrel?"
Well, invading the birthplace of Islam, itself, would doubtlessly do 9/10ths of the terrorists' work for them. It's kind of hard to say this is a war against hardline homicidal Islamics when we're invading the Kingdom, itself.
There's really no point to it, anyway. They can be pressured and controlled.
J
According to Dr. Jack Wheeler's, To The Point, The Oasis for Rational Conservatives: http://www.tothepointnews.com/welcome.php?partner=WND
"Saudi Arabia, just like the Soviet Union, is a colonial empire within its own borders. It will break apart just as did the USSR."
I think that deserves a reflective, Hmmm!
The answer is that Saudi Arabia is a religiously based government as is Iran. Bush will take no action against any religious entity.
In order to attack Afghanistan Bush had to convince himself that the Taliban had "hijacked" the "beautiful" religion of Islam and that the Taliban was actually irreligious. Note also that American troops were primarily advisors, and not the major group of combatants.
The clearest example of Bush's religio-phobia came when American troops had al-Zarqawi's gang cornered in Fallujah and then withdrew rather than attack the mosque where the terrorists were holed up. Months later, American troops re-entered Fallujah but not until the Taliban-like rulers had virtually destroyed the city and could now be regarded as mere brigands instead of mullahs.
Bush believes that a government must have a religious foundation and because of that he will not support any secular movements like the one in Iran. For Bush, it is secularism that is the root of all evil. Hence, Iraq and Syria can be attacked but Saudi Arabia and Iran will not be.
This is not a war against "hardline homicidal Islamics" it is a war against Islam. If you doubt this then explain the opinion polls in Muslim countries that show upwards of 80% of Muslims approve of the attacks on the Towers. Muslims know this, why doesn't Bush?
Islam demands the complete and unconditional surrender of one's will to Allah. It is a form of abject, spiritual enslavement. Any kind of freedom - freedom of speech, freedom of religious worship, even the freedom to choose one's clothing is, by its nature, un-Islamic. Freedom is not compatible with a religion whose name means "peace through submission".
Understand that there are millions of ostensibly Muslim individuals who do not subscribe to these doctrines and who represent no threat to America. Many are, in fact, loyal Americans but they are only a tiny percentage of the world Muslim population.
To the extent that a Muslim believes in submission, that is the extent to which he will hate America.
You cannot win a war against an ideology without attacking that ideology's foundation. America didn't win a war against the Nazis by saying that Nazism was a "beautiful" system of government that was corrupted by a small group of Hitlerites. The Soviet Union's fate wasn't sealed until Reagan proclaimed it to be "The Evil Empire".
Likewise, we cannot win until we identify and denounce our enemy - Islamic fundamentalism. Will Bush do this? Not a chance in hell.
Will Saudi Arabia collapse of its own evil? Not if it continues receive both material and moral support from the US. The Soviet Union would have collapsed by 1925 but survived another 74 years with outside support.
What I want conservatives to understand is that Bush is not a great leader. He is a moral coward who chips around the periphery of an enemy he dares not identify. Bush's own religiosity has rendered him impotent to understand the nature of our enemy.
Until an American president can categorically denounce any religious, philosophical or political doctrine that demands that the individual submit to a greater power, we are destined to fight a no win war against the terrorists.
The extended Royal family itself may help us. There are so many Princes that a succession could start a Civil War.
The deference to Islam is part of the problem. The Saudi's know that PC types are afraid of invading Holy soil.
According to the Koran itself Jews and Christians were there first. The notion that Saudi soil is inherently sacred is PC rhetoric.
"If you doubt this then explain the opinion polls in Muslim countries that show upwards of 80% of Muslims approve of the attacks on the Towers"
Give me some direct citations of the polls themselves, please.
"Freedom is not compatible with a religion whose name means "peace through submission"."
Tell that to the Turks : )
J
Take a trip to freedom house and look at the Freedom ratings. Turkey is not exactly a model of freedom. It is also an ethnicaly cleansed society. Look at the demographics and get back to us.While you are at it look at the demographics of Pakistan and India.
To J Edward Tremlett
I was working from memory and can't find the original citations. I will withdraw the claim until I can.
However, the following link claims recent improvement in Muslim perception of the US. The older 2002 numbers are consistent with my claim.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050304-102718-5867r.htm
Bear in mind that this poll was in Indonesia where the US sent tsunami aid while Al Qaeda hid in the hills. Also remember that Indonesia isn't entirely Muslim and the answers to the polls do not differentiate between Muslims and non-Muslims.
"The Muslims are required to raise the banner of jihad in order to make the World of Allah supreme in this world."
"Traditions and Morals explains that a particularly "noble" bit of the Koran is "encouraging the faithful to perform jihad in God's cause, to behead the infidels, take them prisoner, break their power – all that in a style which contains the highest examples of urging to fight."
More here http://www.frizzensparks.com/archives/000658.html
P.S. I also saw poll results on FNC, that showed 80% of Muslim's believe we got our "just desserts" on 9/11.
Well, at least it is not as bad as the American left's poll figure of 99.99999999%.
Remember Billary's 9/11 speech at
Georgetown! http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1215
"Bear in mind that this poll was in Indonesia where the US sent tsunami aid while Al Qaeda hid in the hills. Also remember that Indonesia isn't entirely Muslim and the answers to the polls do not differentiate between Muslims and non-Muslims."
Which makes the poll pretty much useless, unfortunately. I'll look forward to a more comprehensive and accurate answer.
One question, though: if Islam is antithetical to freedom, then what is your take on our reconstruction efforts in Iraq? Are we wasting our time setting up a democratic government there?
J
The fate of Iraq shows trends, but like anything else that hinges on human choices it's hard to be certain of the outcome.
Since freedom is a natural requirement of life its effects on the Iraqi culture will be beneficial. However, the extent of the freedoms that exist is hard to know.
I don't know if private businesses and private ownership are being encouraged or how free newspapers are to publish. I do know that as people gain greater control over their lives they tend to produce stable, sane societies.
Religion, though always a malignant influence (contrary to the claims of the religious right in America) has a power that is inversely proportional to people's sense of being in control of their own lives.
Voting adds to the sense of being in control. This has shown to be true in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The large turnouts in Iraq really were a huge setback for the terrorists.
On the dark side, there are provisions to include sections in the new Iraqi constitution that forbid the passage of any law contradicting the sacred tenets of Islam. This could give the mullahs enough power to turn Iraq into Iran, Part II.
Unfortunately, our administration is guided by ideas like those of Antonin Scalia who insists, contrary to the Founders, that the United States government derives its authority from the Judeo-Christian god.
If Bush and the others in his administration believe this, and if they consider Allah to be a version of the Judeo-Christian god, then the new Iraq will have theocracy stamped on it from the beginning.
Islam has great power to make people act against their own self interest as the homicide bombers prove. Is it greater than the desire of most people to be happy on earth? We'll see.
Mr. Meyer, just in case you never read it. Below is the rough draft of Jefferson's creation, and here is Congress's additions, and deletions. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/congress.htm
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
--John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
"Religion, though always a malignant influence (contrary to the claims of the religious right in America) has a power that is inversely proportional to people's sense of being in control of their own lives."
Well, I can't agree that it's always a malignant influence. I've seen good and bad come out of it, and while history teaches us that a lot of bad can come out of it, there's doubtlessly been a lot of good, too.
On the other hand, I'll agree there can be an inverse ratio between how "religious" you are and how much control you feel you have over your own life. Once you adopt the mantra "God has a plan for us all," followed by "let go and let God," you're ripe fodder for Theocrats. Whether they want you to donate all you have so they can have a new TV show or blow yourself up at a bus station depends on the Theocrat : )
J
Mr. Meyer states:
"Unfortunately, our administration is guided by ideas like those of Antonin Scalia who insists, contrary to the Founders, that the United States government derives its authority from the Judeo-Christian god."
Rightminded answers this intolerable asininity with:
"Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it temporal punishments or burdens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion. No men shall...suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the Book of Life than that these people are to be free. The precepts of philosophy and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. Jesus pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man, erected his tribunal in the regions of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head."-- Thomas Jefferson
Also with:
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson
WHICH FOUNDERS DO YOU SPEAK OF, Mr. Meyer? Are you sure you're not speaking of your founder--Ayn Rand.
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."— Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged
Did you state the following wacko opinion based upon Rand's world-view as written in her nonfiction books such as The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
"So here's a question for all you loyal Bushies - Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia seize the oil wells and run them night and day until oil hit $20 per barrel? That would drive Iran, Iraq, Yemen and the rest of the terrorist homes into bankruptcy effectively defunding terrorists around the world. Buck a gallon gasoline would shutup the Europeans too."
We are looking for free, and open- market access to the oil of the world.--WE ARE NOT RIGHT-WING, SOCIALIST-FASCIST, ENVIOUS OF OTHERS PROPERTY TO THE POINT OF STEALING IT.
You, and Poindexter need some more of God in your life, and less of YOU in your life.
Rightminded:
If you read Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration you will see that God isn't mentioned. The additions were made primarily at the behest of the Reverend Witherspoon of New Jersey. In Jefferson's draft rights were "inherent and inalienable".
Furthermore, if you had read the version you quoted you would know that it says that men were endowed with rights by their Creator, not men were saddled with commandments by their Creator. Nowhere in any of the founding documents of this nation will you find any statement that sovereignty comes from God. The Founders agreed that the authority of government comes from "We, the People" as the opening of the Constitution clearly states.
If you believe that I am attributing views to Scalia that he doesn't have then read the oral arguments in the Ten Commandments case (Orden v Perry) Here is a quote from the arguments:
JUSTICE SCALIA: And when somebody goes by that monument, I don't think they're studying each one of the commandments. It's a symbol of the fact that government comes -- derives its authority from God. And that is, it seems to me, an appropriate symbol to be on State grounds.
and more...
JUSTICE SCALIA: Doesn't it matter whether that text has acquired an independent meaning of its own? As I say, I don't think most people know what the text of the Ten Commandments are, but they do know that it stands for the fact that our laws are derived from God. That's what it stands for."
Scalia is an open theocrat and make no bones about it.
As for stealing other people's property you must be kidding. Those oil wells were nationalized (stolen) from British, American and Dutch oil companies by the group of desert brigands known as the Saud family. The theft was permitted by the Brits, Americans and Dutch as a way of establishing a force in Saudi Arabia to counter Soviet attempt to control the Middle East. Just goes to show how supporting the "lesser of two evils" never works.
Are you actually defending the "property" rights of a sadistic, totalitarian monarchy that would execute you for merely reading from your precious Book of Fables - the Bible?
As for Ayn Rand: I learned more about philosophy as a result of reading her works than any other writer but I argue my views not hers because I am not an Objectivist.
Unfortunately, today Objectivism is little more than a cult that justifies its existence by claiming that it and it alone can maintain the "purity" of her philosophy. With a few important exceptions, the members of the cult are hopeless toadies, incapable of original work.
Those who are interested in a real philosophical eye-opening should read her works but avoid her acolytes. Rand was a brilliant philosopher and a first rate writer but a poor judge of character.
Rightminded, your mode of argumentation - quote after quote - shows the problem with the religious right. They can't think for themselves. Quoting scripture is not the same thing as making a rational argument.
Because the Founders believed in God doesn't mean that the Constitution is based on God any more than the fact that most doctors in America are Christians means that medicine is founded upon Biblical principles. Or do you believe that the proper treatment for leprosy involves animal sacrifices and sprinking a dead bird's blood on the patient? (Leviticus 14)
My arguments are based on the fact that every society that has merged church and state turned life on earth into hell. Europe in the Dark Ages, Calvin's dictatorship in Geneva, the Puritans in Massachusetts and modern Islam are all horror stories. If the Iraqis fail to separate mosque and state then they, too, will know hell on earth.
I agree with most of your points, Bob. But!
"modern Islam are all horror stories"
I have to disagree, based on my experiences. I live in an extremely modern Muslim state, and while there are things I have extreme problems with, there's things to be happy for, too.
Islam isn't monolithic. What goes on in the Kingdom isn't what's going on in Malaysia, and what's going on in Dubai isn't what's going on in Iran.
In some places, the people are demanding what they see on TV and the internet, and modernity is creeping upon them. In others, the rulers are doing everything they can to put a clamp on progress, and even trying to take them backwards (the Taliban was a prime example of this)
Change is coming - in a lot of ways, it's already here. But we have to be ready to recognize that change for what it is, and encourage it along.
If we do that, we'll reap the rewards of a better world. But if we keep chanting "evil empire" and threatening to bomb Mecca, we're just giving ammo to the hardliners who insist that the modern world is of the Devil.
J
I was talking about deposing a corrupt, sadistic theologically based monarchy in Saudi Arabia. There is no reason that I know of to bomb Malaysia.
The point of my posts is that to deal with terrorists you have to 1) attack their beliefs 2) eliminate their funding 3) remove the governments that support them, i.e. give them no quarter, no respite and no sanctuary either material or spiritual.
Muslims must choose, theocracy or limited secular govennment, the 9th century or the 21st. Those who try to choose a "middle" path, Muslim, Christian or whatever, will be slaughtered by the terrorists.
Mr. Meyer, your blind devotion to your religion, your lord and master, "fanatic-secularist-atheism," has left you with a twisted mind which accounts for your twisted logic. Your ignorance of history, and economics is to be expected, and goes hand in hand with the aforementioned.
If the Founding Father's interpretation of the separation of church and state was, as you fanatic-secular-atheist contend, then why on God's green earth did they allow God to play such a prominent role in this nations fledgling period?
Why didn't these brilliant men, many of whom were lawyers, file the necessary law suits to stop your ilk's believed, "tyranny of a belief in God in the public sector?" They most certainly had the power to do so!
The answer is simple!
Their Christian republicanism affirmed itself, it imbued in these dedicated Christians a conviction that the Bible supported their beliefs over those of all others. The separation of church and state simple meant there would never be a, if you will, "A Church of The United States of America." The reason Jefferson chose his words wisely in the Holy Grail of our nation, The Declaration of Independents, was so all individuals could decide for themselves who their creator was, and how divine providence related to them. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, HE AND THE OTHER FOUNDING FATHERS BELIEVED THAT THE SINE QUA NON OF OUR LIBERTY CAME FROM CHRIST, TO THE PEOPLE, AND THEN TO THE PEOPLES ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. It was vital that the nascence of human right never came from any one man, or any group of men, as was the case in Europe. They were very fearful of this Republic reverting back to a monarchy, which almost happened.--YOU REALLY SHOWED ME THE LIMITS OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE WITH RESPECT TO AMERICAN HISTORY ON THIS ONE! OR PERHAPS YOU ONLY BELIEVE WHAT YOUR FILTHY RELIGION ALLOWS!
JUSTICE SCALIA HAS IT JUST RIGHT! In time "we" will be able to replace the likes of one of your deities, "Darth Vader Ginsberg," of the feminist dark side, with more Rightminded JUSTICE SCALIA's
The fact of the matter is, the jihad by you fanatic, religious atheists is relatively new. Your attempt to use lies, and spin as you evinced in your latest posts, was emboldened just a few decades ago with your collaboration with the left, and it's leftist courts. These Twistedminded law suits were not given the time of day for the vast majority of our Republic's history, and your lying, spinning hind quarters knows it.
With respect to your moronic plan of, go east, blow them up, and steal their oil until it reaches $2.00 a barrel. Did it ever occur to you, how this could effect the world economy? Let alone the stability of the world! An artificially created low price of oil, would be as catastrophic as an artificially created high price of oil. And while we are perpetrating this rapine on the House of Saud, is the rest of the world not going to believe that they just may be next, and unite. What about the civil war it could cause in this country? I for one draw the line at this kind of tyranny!
One final comment in closing. Only a fool makes 2005 decisions, and justifications based upon the zeitgeist of the days when the House of Saud came into being. HOW LONG AGO WAS IT? FOOL!
P.S. Just because 80% of Muslims believe we had it coming with respect to 9/11. Does not mean they will "ALL" highjack airliners and turn them into cruise-missiles, and offer their children up to act as bombs!--"W" is handling this, "war on terror" just right.
Now, go put your dunces hat on, and get back in the corner where you belong! YOU ARE IN THE WAY OF THE REAL POWER IN THIS COUNTRY!
Rightminded:
Do what the doctors told you, start taking your medication again or else they will have to take away your crayons.
You don't want your post to be used as evidence at your next competency hearing, do you?
Yeah Right!
I thought as much!
And another one bites the dust!... another bites the dust!
I love it when you intellectual punks scream uncle!
P.S. Did you know that the House of Saud now gets the majority of their income from their investments in the west, instead of their oil revenue.
How does that fit into your reasoning? Hmmmmmm!
Oh, and just to be clear:
"You, and Poindexter need some more of God in your life, and less of YOU in your life."
I have God in my life, Grandpa. Several of them, in fact. : )
J
Now that's funny!
The funniest comments are those that are true.
Yes, I am an old fart, and "you" are probably the Apollo of your gods.
I picture you with that stupid, pointy, dippy-do'ed, bleach-streaked hair.
P.S. You said,
" I live in an extremely modern Muslim state, and while there are things I have extreme problems with, there's things to be happy for, too."
There are ways of finding out if you speaky with forked tongue! Do you want to take it back? Hmmmmmm!
CANADA SHOULD, BUT IT DOES NOT COUNT!
Rightminded:
Quoting scripture is not an argument.
Screaming invective is not an argument.
Ranting about unknown effects and unprovable possibilities is not an argument.
If you ever succeed in actually formulating a coherent line of reasoning then I will be glad to tear it to shreads.
Until then, bear in mind that:
You have failed to produce any Founder who believed that the US government derives its authority from God.
You have failed to produce a single Founder who believed in the divinity of Christ.
You have failed to produce a single Founder's document that even mentions Jesus Christ.
You have failed to explain why attacking Iraq is good but attacking Saudi Arabia ia bad.
You have failed to demonstrate why the property of royal Saudi thieves must be respected but that of American and others can be nationalized.
On the bright side you can take solace in the fact that you have set a standard of failure that may never be equaled.
Go in peace Mr. Meyer!
It is like trying to explain the internet to an ant.
I just hope your first name is not Oscar. This would explain your problems.
Hey Weiner Boy! Hey Hot Dog Boy!
There's ole bologna brain!
CHILDREN CAN BE SO CRUEL!
"There are ways of finding out if you speaky with forked tongue! Do you want to take it back? Hmmmmmm!"
I accept your challenge, Grandpa.
Go digging and see what you find. : )
J
ps: the blonde god thing would look pretty silly with all the hair gone up top. Maybe if they improve the implants thing so you don't look like a human barbie doll I'll go for it, though.
Post a Comment
<< Home