Swearing In By The Koran?

NRO: The Constitution Protects Multiculturalism

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Eugene Volokh.

---

The U.S. Constitution is a multiculturalist document. Not in all senses, of course: It tries to forge a common national culture as well as tolerating other cultures. But it is indeed multiculturalist in important ways.

We shouldn't forget that when we're tempted to categorically condemn supposedly multiculturalist changes to our constitutional practices.

Consider what Dennis Prager — whose work I often much like — wrote in his most recent column:

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

This argument both mistakes the purpose of the oath, and misunderstands the Constitution. In fact, it calls for the violation of some of the Constitution's multiculturalist provisions.

To begin with, the oath is a religious ritual, both in its origins and its use by the devout today. The oath invokes God as a witness to one's promise, as a means of making the promise more weighty on the oathtaker's conscience.

This is why, for instance, the Federal Rules of Evidence, dealing with the related subject of the courtroom oath, state, "Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so."

If you want the oath to be maximally effective, then it is indeed entirely true that "all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book." That book is the one that will most impress the oathtaker's mind with the duty to comply with the oath.

Of course, some might care less about making the oath more effective, and more about using the oath to reinforce traditional American values, in which they include respect for the Bible (the "only ... book" "America is interested in") over other holy books. That, I take it, is part of Prager's argument, especially when he goes on to say, "When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization."

Yet this would literally violate the Constitution's provision that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." For the devout, taking an oath upon a religious book is a religious act. Requiring the performance of a religious act using the holy book of a particular religion is a religious test. If Congress were indeed to take the view that "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don't serve in Congress," it would be imposing an unconstitutional religious test.

"First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism %u2014 my culture trumps America's culture." -Dennis Prager

Then how is it not an act of hubris to declare your religion equal to American culture? I'm sure Prager would explode if someone was denied to be sworn in with a Bible. And I love how multiculturalist activism is somehow a boogeyman for some people. Seriously, where is this guy from? Is being non-Christian somehow un-American?

What ever happened to the separation of church and state? I really could care less what book he/they used

[sevenveils]

Eugene Volokh article is on the point.
Religious freedom is The very heart of American culture.
This brings up an interesting topic for an article - how the bible became ingrained in the judicial system of a secular democracy.
At any rate everyone should have a right to swear upon their holiest scripture in a court of law; as long as the religion represented by the scripture is officially recognized by the U.S. government. Perhaps this will force the judicial system to create a list of approved for the purpose of swearing into a court of law.

[oleander8]

To insist that someone to take an oath on something they do not believe in negates the oath.

"At any rate everyone should have a right to swear upon their holiest scripture in a court of law; as long as the religion represented by the scripture is officially recognized by the U.S. government."

It should not be necessary to be on a government approved list in order to adhere to your religion while entering public office. If somehow a Nazi was elected and wanted to be sworn in with Mein Kampf, he should be allowed to do so. Anyway, if that actually happened, I'd be more worried about the electorate that would vote for a Nazi than about what he was sworn in with.

[rafterman1]

I must have missed the anouncement making Christianity the official religion of the US.

[getcentered]

Swear In By The Koran.

I don't care.

Swear in by some dirt, as long as it strengthens the promise being made, and justifies perjury or fraud charges if you're lying.

[abu-sahajj]

"Then how is it not an act of hubris to declare your religion equal to American culture?" (kenner116)

Great point, not only is the resistance to allow Rep. Ellison not to swear by the Qur'an rooted in arrogance but it typifies the very condition that the Founding Fathers fought to free themselves of, that position being described here by Thomas Jefferson,

"Our minds were circumscribed within narrow limits by an habitual belief that it was our duty to be subordinate to the mother country in all matters of government, to direct all our labors in subservience to her interests, and even to observe a bigoted intolerance for all religions but hers." (T. Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson)

I think that Ellison's convictions of truth justice and equality are of a personal matter unless the U.S. is not the secular government that it suggests and is in fact more related to the a Theocracy than it is willing to admit, if not then what is the problem.

wasalaam

Abu Sahajj
http://wasalaam.wordpress.com/

[marcodele]

Didn't Oliver North swear on a bible before lying to congress? Didn't Clinton swear on a bible before saying he never has sx with Monica?
Didn't Tom Foley and Tom Delay and all the others swear on a bible to uphold the dignity of their offices? Does it really matter which religious ritual one emulates in accordance with customs?

[harleydrle]

Since swearing is optional and affirming has been accepted in the past, then he should affirm without a book. As pointed out by several of the posters here, swearing on the bible has had no affect on many of our elected officials, and those are only the few that have been caught. Do away with the book and affirm them all to make it equitable. What difference will it make? There are only 2 kinds of politicians, those who have been caught abusing the power and those who have not. But....in light of the state of world affairs since 1975, the cold hard statistics are plain to anyone who wishes to open their eyes and take an honest look. Terrorism is NOT spread equally among the worlds various religions. I for one am not prejudiced and judge each human on their actions rather than their beliefs, color, sexual or religious preferences, but at the same time, I will not bury my head in the sand as so many Americans have done and are doing. Democracies tend to erode from the inside due to the infusion of radical and irrational ideas that tear them apart and divide the union. When terrorism becomes an equal opportunity issue spread equally over the world, I will no longer look at the statistics. For now they do not lie. Do away with the book and affirm them all to make it equitable, starting now!

[gossimer]

We shouldn't compare Keith Ellison to people who've previously lied under oath with their hand on the Bible, as Keith Ellison is his own person. If he chooses to be sworn in with his hand on the book he most reveres, the Koran, that SHOULD be his right, just as he chooses to call God, Allah, or by any of the many other names of God.

If you make someone swear an oath on any book that holds little of no meaning for them, including the Bible, it has absolutely no purpose or meaning to them and the oath is meaningless and void as well. It's what's in the persons heart and soul that matters most, NOT on what their hand is resting on.

[akarsno]

What did America say to the world the land of the free!
And now they are not praticing what they are suppose to be preaching!
Where is our human rights?
What happened to the constituition?
Is America not what the world should follow in examples in anything?
Think about it?
I believe in America the Great for the last 34 years of my life.
Please practise what you preach!

[flolake]

What on earth is the difference as to which book someone swears an oath to. No matter which book is used, the person being sworn is going to do what he or she wants.

Recent history tells us that many elected public officials either were or became rotten to the core. By their end, their true colors were showing for all the world to see & to put in their 2 cents worth in a forum such as this.

We are more than lucky if an elected official goes all the way through their office and never makes a stink or even waves in some cases. Americans historically dwell on the bad in people. Especially the American press.

Again, what's the difference between one book & another. People are going to do what they're going to do and the U.S. public is uaqually the last to know.

[flolake]

What on earth is the difference as to which book someone swears an oath to. No matter which book is used, the person being sworn is going to do what he or she wants.

Recent history tells us that many elected public officials either were or became rotten to the core. By their end, their true colors were showing for all the world to see & to put in their 2 cents worth in a forum such as this.

We are more than lucky if an elected official goes all the way through their office and never makes a stink or even waves in some cases. Americans historically dwell on the bad in people. Especially the American press.

Again, what's the difference between one book & another. People are going to do what they're going to do and the U.S. public is usually the last to know.

[gaye5]

I really dont think it matters what he swears on, as Muslims are allowed to lie for the cause of allah to the infidel, in times of war etc, as long as they dont mean it in their hearts and lets face it we are the infidel and they consider that they are at war with us anyway...
Unfortunately, passages from the Qur%u2019an clearly reveal that lying is permitted, particularly in reference to non-believers in conflict with Muslims. It is also clear that if forced to do so, Muslims may lie under oath and can even falsely deny faith in Allah, as long as they maintain the profession of faith in their hearts. In the Qur%u2019an, Allah says: "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing." Surah 2:225. The principal also has support in the Qur%u2019an 3:28 and 16:106.

[halozcel]

U.S.Constitution should be used or in the name of your honor sworn,not on religious books.

[sandycat2]

When our media can publish cartoons mocking Muhamed and the Koran, then I will accept the Koran and not before. Why is it Americans are expected to be tolerant of those that are not tolerant of us. And Islam and the Koran has not been tolerant of Americans. I think the Muslims should swear in on no book because one is not needed. And it certainly shouldn't be the Koran.

[rafterman1]

Since we are talking about public office, especialyl at the Federal level, shouldn't these people be taking their oath on a copy of the Constitution? Unfortunately though, the Constitution seems to have little meaning to people these days.

[notblue]

Didn't our founding fathers, politicians, judges and public servants use the bible swearing ceremony since this great country was founded? Isn't all our legal tender plastered with the same referrences? What's the big deal? Whether you believe in the bible or not it's a cerimonial tradition that has been used from the beginning. Why do some minority groups show no tolerance for American tradition when tolerance to there traditions are demanded in our modern society?

[sandycat2]

I am not a rascist, but I don't believe in extending people tolerance and good-will if the same is not shown to Americans. I have read about Muhamed and the Koran and it is not tolerant of anyone else but muslims. In the Koran it is okay for muslims to lie to non-muslims. In the Koran, it is okay to kill non-muslims. According to Mahamed and the Koran, muslims are the only people and their God is the only God. Islam needs a reformation, but how can a reformation happen when these intolerant and murderous things are spoken by their prohet and in their so-called holy book.

[khen1950fx]

Rubbish.

[notblue]

To jerryomara the word I used was tradition and your intolerance of tradition proves my point

[kemetorigin]

Here Here Mr. Volokh!

I concur; it is about what the individual holds holy. If you as someone not of the Xian faith to swear on the bible then it means nothing to the individual b/c he/she is not beholden to that book and thus may feel no moral obligation to act truthfully b/c the faith is not there. However, when asked to comply with a faith that is original and/or prized by you, you are more likely to act in accordance with that by which you are swearing because it has been fortified by your own faith.

[kemetorigin]

Sandycat2
The bible is intolerant of other faiths as well. It says only "true believers will enter the kingdom of heaven". It is intolerant of those who do not believe in the "holy trinity". Perhaps visiting religoustolerance.org would enlighten you. The Islamic deity Allah derives from the deities of Abraham as do both Jehovah and Yaweh(G_d of the Jewish faith), thus, they are all one in the same. The tenets of faith may differ, but ultimately they all maintain a common theme--RESPECT. The images of Islam have been tarnished to reflect those of extremists. Xian media has not used Timothy McVay or Eric Rudolph as examples of Xianity. Nor have they used Ted Haggard. You would not want the world to see these people as Xian symbols, so why would you see Muslim extremists as examples of true Islam? It is hypocrisy.

[kemetorigin]

Sandycat2
The bible is intolerant of other faiths as well. It says only "true believers will enter the kingdom of heaven". It is intolerant of those who do not believe in the "holy trinity". Perhaps visiting religoustolerance.org would enlighten you. The Islamic deity Allah derives from the deities of Abraham as do both Jehovah and Yaweh(G_d of the Jewish faith), thus, they are all one in the same. The tenets of faith may differ, but ultimately they all maintain a common theme--RESPECT. The images of Islam have been tarnished to reflect those of extremists. Xian media has not used Timothy McVay or Eric Rudolph as examples of Xianity. Nor have they used Ted Haggard. You would not want the world to see these people as Xian symbols, so why would you see Muslim extremists as examples of true Islam? It is hypocrisy.

[sandycat2]

I am not talking about the bible. I am speaking as an American when I talk about the Koran and Islam. As an American I am expected to extend all religions tolerance which I have done all my life, but I have not seen anything in Islam or the Koran or in anything the Phophet Muhamed said which was tolerant of other people who are not muslims. Islam goes against the American constitution. Action speaks louder than words. Islam can't just say they are a tolerant and peaceful religion. They have to show it and I haven't seen that yet. I'm waiting.

[kemetorigin]

I have never met an intolerant Muslim. I have met several intolerant Xians IN CHURCH. Dearborn, MI has the largest population of Muslims in the country. Yet, it is one of the most peaceful burbs in Detroit metro. It is not appropriate to compare a faith to a nation. The founding fathers may have used the bible and indoctrinated it as part of the overall culture, however, they fled to the states to escape religious persecution. The point is, the Koran is HIS holy book. Would you want to be sworn in on the Koran if you were not Muslim or the Torah if you are not Jewish? Two wrongs do not a right make. Again, I have NEVER been disrespected by a Muslim. I have been disrespected by AMERICANS at least once a week. Nonetheless, I do not hold the whole people responsible for the acts of a few or use that disrespect as an excuse to disrespect others. There have been things in the Amendments to the Constitution that have been intolerable. Remember 3/5 of a man for blacks? Remember Plessy vs. Ferguson? I could go on, but does that mean that people of African descent have the right to disrespect the US?

[lovefights]

The Bible in Congress is a Disciple's Book. Those who follow Jesus Christ are Christians, all the other's are known as Nominal Christians (in name only).

If the Bible means anything to you, you would obey the words of Jesus. The Bible is all about Jesus. Jesus say's not to swear on anything. So the Bible you have in Congress is in disobediance to the LORD JESUS CHRIST.

So what is all this nonsense about giving an oath on the Bible or the Koran???

Matt 5:33-37
33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.'
34 "But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne;
35 "nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
36 "Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
37 "But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
(NKJ)

AMEN!!!

[pendragon679]

"Why is it Americans are expected to be tolerant of those that are not tolerant of us."

Why? Because our founding fathers came to this country and fought wars to protect that right. Tolerance of others is a very large part of what it means to BE an American, thank you very much.

[toadspad]

Only a racist would be against this man from is right as an AMERICAN to have the oath on his religions book.
Personally it is improper to use any book from a religion as a symbole of swearing in.
Just raise your right hand and sware to "Up hold the office elected to". Period nothing else. Keep religion out of politics

[jetauma]

The founding fathers did recognize the higher power: God. But they were not Christians in the tight definitions we use today. Many were Masons, knowledgeable and respectful of all wisdom sources. Which book one uses is not relevant. Holding to one's personal oath is.
Lovefights is right: Christians are instructed in the Bible not to Swear by anything. But answer Yea or Nay.

[sandycat2]

Be an American and stand up for freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and just plain freedom to stay alive. Our constitution says we the people have a right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. And the founding founders fought for those things so the rest of us Americans can enjoy those things, but they also said to defend our freedoms against ALL attacks against those freedoms and to me that means Islamic facists who have said repeatedly they want to destroy the US. So be an American ans stand up for our freedoms instead of just mouthing meaningless words about toereance that isn't there on the side of freedom's eneemies. Thank you very much.

[drather1]

As if what you had to say was news.... The article contained very little news, and a whole boatload of one man's editorial opinion, and it was in a news area, not in an editorial area.

[macusweil]

Any true believer would realize that the oath is to God and since there is only one God the book itself immaterial.

[macusweil]

Does anyone at the NR ever have an opinion that is not hateful, divisive and/or destructive? I am much inclined to think this is not the case.

[bevlar-2009]

As a person who has had extensive experience with Muslims...Saudis and Iranians...('70's period)--and having read the Koran over 40 years ago, I can state that Islam is the most dangerous "society"--AKA--"religion" on the Planet! However,everytime someone like myself makes this kind of statement, we are "branded with 'bigot'--'racist' and other childish, naive adjectives, that the DENIAL people put on people like myself. Islam, is a ONE WAY STREET--as in become a Muslim--pay tribute--or die! Think I'm making this up? Ask your friendly Muslim! To avoid a lengthy discussion here, I'll simply say that for YEARS--I have been an advocate in writing/contacting everyone I can think of to PROHIBIT ANY MUSLIM FROM HOLDING ANY GOVERNMENT POSITION IN AMERICA! ISLAM IS SIMPLY NOT 'AMERICAN' AND IS AGAINST EVERYTHING AMERICA STANDS FOR: A FEW E.G.'S EQUALITY...FREEDOM...WOMEN'S RIGHTS...AND ON AND ON. Keith Ellison being the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, is a very dangerous precedent! As far as Ellison himself goes, he should NOT even entertain the thought of REVERTING to Chrisitanity! In ISLAM, it's an AUTOMATIC DEATH SENTENCE! Is anyone out there "thinking" about anthing except "PC" towards Islam? Ask your friendly "recent defector from the Middle East"--about how "PC" Islam is in the Middle East towards Christians, Jews, and women!

[sandycat2]

Bevlar, I totally agree with you and I was called rascist by people on this very thread. Many people in America are so caught up in rights that can't even see that the US has dangerous enemies who want to destroy our freedoms and take our lives. You would think 9/11 would have been a wake up call for Americans, but sadly many just didn't get the message.

[gaye5]

FARTKNOCKER2
I agree with you, it is not hate that we say, it is hate we are trying to avoid..
The Quran orders Muslims to not be our friends, and to destroy all who will not submit in the world, so there is no way that America should let him swear on the Quran..
While we push for their rights we are in effect pushing for our demise... read the LAST three quarters of the Quran and others of their holy books for yourselves instead of saying that people who are trying to warn us are racist etc...we must find out for ourselves..they tell us we dont understand the quran
Ishaq:327 %u201CAllah said, %u2018A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. etc. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.%u2019%u201D
%u2026"for the Unbelievers are open enemies to you." 4:101
Qur%u2019an 9:29 %u201CFight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.%u201D
Qur%u2019an 8:39 %u201CFight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.%u201D
Qur%u2019an 8:39 %u201CSo fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).%u201D
Ishaq:324 %u201CHe said, %u2018Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.%u2019%u201D
Buy it does not take a rocket scientist to understand these words and many more..

[gaye5]

FARTKNOCKER2
I agree with you, it is not hate that we say, it is hate we are trying to avoid..
The Quran orders Muslims to not be our friends, and to destroy all who will not submit in the world, so there is no way that America should let him swear on the Quran..
While we push for their rights we are in effect pushing for our demise... read the LAST three quarters of the Quran and others of their holy books for yourselves instead of saying that people who are trying to warn us are racist etc...we must find out for ourselves..they tell us we dont understand the quran
Ishaq:327 %u201CAllah said, %u2018A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. etc. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.%u2019%u201D
%u2026"for the Unbelievers are open enemies to you." 4:101
Qur%u2019an 9:29 %u201CFight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.%u201D
Qur%u2019an 8:39 %u201CFight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.%u201D
Qur%u2019an 8:39 %u201CSo fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).%u201D
Ishaq:324 %u201CHe said, %u2018Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.%u2019%u201D
Buy it does not take a rocket scientist to understand these words and many more..

[creeper00]

So how likely is a man to honor an oath he was forced to swear on a book in which he does not believe?

Geez, people, get a grip! Would the oath of a Christan taken with his hand on the Koran be binding? The principle is the same.

The bible has NO place in government. We need to get god off of our money and out of our Pledge of Allegiance. We need to get the bible out of the Capitol.

A brief reminder to you religious zealots who would base everything on the bible (which, BTW, was written not by god but by men and spare me the "divine inspriation" lecture)--the book you so revere is the very one carried by the Crusaders in their two hundred year pursuit of worldwide Christian hegemony.

You remember the Crusades, don't you? You don't? Perhaps this, from "Taking Jerusalem: Climax of the First Crusade" By J. Arthur McFall will refresh your memory. "The Crusaders spent at least that night and the next day killing Muslims, including all of those in the al-Aqsa Mosque, where Tancred's banner should have protected them. Not even women and children were spared. The city's Jews sought refuge in their synagogue, only to be burned alive within it by the Crusaders. .... The Europeans also destroyed the monuments to Orthodox Christian saints and the tomb of Abraham."

Now put down your stones.

[sandycat2]

We don't need to swear on the bible if it bothers someone. Youcan swear in on no book or you could use a book of the constitutio0n of the US. Anything, but the Koran.

[andy_f90]

As a Muslim, some of these posts here are simply disgusting and anti-Semitic (Muslims are Semitic people).

But alas, some people like to wallow in their supremacy and denigration of others.

The ridiculous claim the Koran supporting violence (to the exclusion of the Bible) and against "infidels" is laughable (its like saying US Constitution is a violent document for protecting freedom of arms) and the very manifestation of the right-wing propagandist hate-radio campaign to malign "Islam" and its holy book.

As the poster below: RepubliCONS are America's worst enemies...it won't be some "Islamist" that threatens Constitutional freedom, but right-wing hatemongers who collectively threaten us and our freedoms: as was seen with the suspension of habeaus corpus!

[andy_f90]

You remember the Crusades, don't you? You don't? Perhaps this, from "Taking Jerusalem: Climax of the First Crusade" By J. Arthur McFall will refresh your memory. "The Crusaders spent at least "That night and the next day killing Muslims, including all of those in the al-Aqsa Mosque, where Tancred's banner should have protected them. Not even women and children were spared. The city's Jews sought refuge in their synagogue, only to be burned alive within it by the Crusaders. .... The Europeans also destroyed the monuments to Orthodox Christian saints and the tomb of Abraham."

No creeper its easier to blame Muslims for being violent and overlook the neocons own track record of proclaiming them "freedom fighters" (mujahadeen, remember that term) when they were fighting Soviet Communism, but "terrorists" when they are resisting US forces in Iraq.

There won't be "cut and run," there will be blame and run. Blame the Iraqis for "not getting their act together," while the self-proclaimed Christian warrior Pres. Bush led his modern crusade and invasion to attack Iraq for Israel's security. Can you spell D-E-F-E-A-T-E-D and D-O-W-N-F-A-L-L of Republicans?

[sandycat2]

No, suspension of freedoms came when Islamic terrorists attacked the US on 9/11. The US had an open door policy before that day. Will Muslims blame the need to suspend some freedoms on Americans as well as saying the Jews did 9/11 or some muslims who say Americans did 9/11 to ourselves? If there is any hatemongering going on, it's coming from the Islamic community. Muslims are in serious denial about the hatred and murderous violence coming from Islam. Too bad you don't like other Americans' attitudes toward muslims because I think you are going to have to live with it.

[andy_f90]

The author of this article states:

"The affirmation option was thus one tool to make sure that the law didn't exclude people of certain religious groups from office, but rather let them retain their religious culture while participating in American civic life."

Thank God for our forefathers who didn't proclaim Christianity and Bible as laws of the land. And in that sense were true multiculturalists.

Thanks for this article.

[sandycat2]

Andy, no one really cares about the crusades. That's ancient history. If you want to compare history, there is plenty of historical record where Phrophet Muhamed conquered non-muslims and then butchered the men by cutting off their heads and then raping and enslaving their women. There is a reason Constantnople is no longer Christian, but is now Muslim and called Istanbul. The Muslims had a crusade of their own going against Christians and they slaughtered a lot of them. I suppose you didn't expect anyone to know about any of this just because we never say anything about this until now. So you can shut up about the Christian crusade now because the Muslim crusade was worse and it's still going on in the present day.

[sandycat2]

Yes Andy, but if Islam has it's way, the US will be a all Muslim.

[andy_f90]

Andy, no one really cares about the crusades. That's ancient history. If you want to compare history, there is plenty of historical record where Phrophet Muhamed conquered non-muslims and then butchered the men by cutting off their heads and then raping and enslaving their women.

Right and Jesus also raped women and killed them... that how much sense you make when you speak from plain malice, spite, and downright ignorance.

Yes Andy, but if Islam has it's way, the US will be a all Muslim.

Yea just like the Middle East where Islam is the prevailing religion and after 1,300 years of Caliphate we see ABSOLUTELY NO Christian, Jew, agnostic, atheist, Orthodox, Shi'i, Druze there.
Boy Islam really had its way there and in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Africa.

Lol, you need to speak more from facts and not from your well of venom!

[andy_f90]

Andy, no one really cares about the crusades. That's ancient history. If you want to compare history, there is plenty of historical record where Phrophet Muhamed conquered non-muslims and then butchered the men by cutting off their heads and then raping and enslaving their women.

Right and Jesus also raped women and killed them... that how much sense you make when you speak from plain malice, spite, and downright ignorance.

Yes Andy, but if Islam has it's way, the US will be a all Muslim.

Yea just like the Middle East where Islam is the prevailing religion and after 1,300 years of Caliphate we see ABSOLUTELY NO Christian, Jew, agnostic, atheist, Orthodox, Shi'i, Druze there.
Boy Islam really had its way there and in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Africa.

Lol, you need to speak more from facts and not from your well of venom!

[andy_f90]

I find it funny that you dismiss the Crusades as "ancient history" and tell me to shut up (typical Christian or American 'red-neck' conversative hubris i guess) while delving into "ancient history" to attack the Prophet and describe the battle of Constantinople as a "Crusade."

Go seriously read your own history. The Crusades slaughtered over 2 million unarmed civilians who were Muslims, Jews, and even other Christians! Some who sought refuge in churches, mosques, and synagogues were burnt alive!

In contrast, the Ottoman Empire fought a regular military battle against Byzantine Empire at BY HISTORICAL accounts the population of Constantinople was "estimated 50,000 people residing in the city at the time of its capture."

So yea, I see the difference between a massacre of millions and a battle amongst 50,000 of which half were captured and the other half were given amnesty.

So yea, please continue to talk, but do so with historical analysis.

As a great saying goes, "we are all entitled to our opinions, but not to our facts."

And I ask you as a self-righteous Christian to reiterate Jesus's word "Blessed are the warmongers or peacemakers?"