Obama Is A Little Fuzzy On History

The Anchoress has a nice piece that describes the Obama ascension from lowly Christian candidate to a full blown “proud to have Muslim roots” politician. Alex Haley looks like a piker compared to the sainted one discussing his roots.

Speaking of self-revelation, in the past President Obama has written and talked about how he has been exposed to Islam all his life and has stated that the Muslim Call to Prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on earth”. He then recited the call in “a first-class accent” (that line no longer exists in the New York Times). Just recently Obama – who made a fuss if anyone mentioned his middle name, Hussein, during the 2008 campaign – has made much of his familial connections to Islam.

Don Surber points out that Rush Limbaugh took Obama to task on some of the “facts” the sainted one uttered during his 6000 word speech.

RUSH: “OK. I know we’re not supposed to criticize Obama’s speech here. I know it’s going way off the reservation here to do this. But, folks, that is outrageous. This is simply outrageous. It was absurd, in fact. Let’s see. here do we start here? ‘It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra.’ No. The origins of algebra trace back to the ancient Babylonians. They were not Muslims. Algebra was temporarily developed by the ancient Greeks and later the English. ‘Our magnetic compass, tools of navigation,’ Islam gave us these? No. Recent research suggests that the compass may have been discovered by Central Americans, but if they didn’t do it, the Chinese are then its discoverers. In either case, be it the Chinese or the Central Americans, the compass was discovered centuries before the advent of Islam.

“Now, what am I supposed to say? I’m not supposed to say this stuff. Now, let’s see, let’s see. ‘Our mastery of pens and printing…’ Has anybody ever heard of Gutenberg? I didn’t know Gutenberg was a Muslim. ‘Our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed…’? Are there Nobel Prizes for Medicine awarded to Muslims I have missed? ‘Islamic has given us some majestic arches and soaring spires…’ Well, sorry, folks, but arches and spires predate the arrival of Islam by centuries. I mean, come on, folks. Arches? Anybody heard of Rome? He also talked about the great gift, ‘timeless poetry and cherished music.’ The only problem there is that music — and musical instruments especially — are forbidden in most Islamic traditions. And it should be unnecessary to have to note Islam’s ‘religious tolerance’ has been demonstrated.”

One of the liberals who visits here regularly would say that Obama did not lie because we could not prove he intended to tell untruths. This is fair enough and I don’t want to start that debate again (suffice it to say that by this standard of proof, Bush never lied). I will just say that Obama is a product of several liberal colleges. He was taught this stuff and he does not know any better. He is evidently not as smart as everyone reports because if he were he might actually fact check before spewing these things.

Then again, he might be deliberately lying to deceive people. His base is full of people who have mush for brains and who would follow him off a cliff not to mention they are less educated than he. It would not be hard for him to convince them that what he is saying is true. In fact, all he has to do is say it and they believe it is true (see regular liberal commenter).

It would not surprise me. Obama is all in favor of helping the Muslims out. He lied about their history and he lied about how peaceful they are. He is actually being the front man for them. Not surprising since he has to help out his new found roots.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

41 Responses to “Obama Is A Little Fuzzy On History”

  1. Randy says:

    Rush Limbaugh is wrong. Terribly wrong.

    http://www.algebra.com/algebra/about/history/

    Islamic communities had a whole lot to do with the development of algebra.

    Rush is being so clearly and intentionally dishonest. Not that I’m surprised. I am only surprised that you and Mr. Surber echo these statements without even scrutinizing them in the least. Even on their face they are dishonest. Obama was referencing contributions, not inventions.

    • Blake says:

      Have you read the other post, Randy? Link to atlas shrugged on the post and you will see that Rush downplayed quite a lot of the speech.

    • Randy says:

      Nothing Obama mentioned in the speech referenced above regarding Muslim history is false. Of course Rush downplayed a lot of the speech. Rush is no fool. He got rich by recognizing that there were many fools ready to believe just about anything that played on their fears. Without conscience maybe, but he is no fool.

      Let’s try for a moment:

      “It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed”

      Absolutely true. There is noting wrong in that statement. Nothing at all.

      • Blake says:

        Nothing Hussein mentioned in that speech was strictly true either, Randy- and, to be fair to Rush, there was A LOT of that speech to be downplayed.
        In your quote, you leave out just who invented the printing press, and it was not a muslim, it was Gutenberg. The muslims, as I have said before were real good at taking other peoples ideas, especially those who they had enslaved, and improving on them, but original ideas seem to be rather sparse. Algebra was Greek in origin, navigational tools were Phoenician in origin, the origins of medicine were, again, Greek, unless you can prove that the Hippocratic oath was muslim, and I do not think so.
        Once again, from their architecture to medicine, we can see that the muslims take what is given, or just take, and in some cases improve on that.

        • Randy says:

          It was strictly true. How was it not? Obama never claimed the printing press was invented by Muslims. No where in the speech was that claim made. I’m not talking semantics either. The claim was not made.

          As far as contributions, I had to take six pure math courses in college. For each one, it was required that I write a research paper citing scholarly sources on the history of each particular subject. As Americans we would not have many of the innovations we have if not for developments in algebra and trigonometry that are directly linked to the religion of Islam.

        • Blake says:

          I have never said that muslims did not improve some things they took from the people they enslaved- I said they were and still are not real good on original thought.

        • Randy says:

          Barack Obama’s speech was factually correct. Rush Limbaugh was being dishonest. Big Dog’s post doesn’t really mean anything at all. Big Dog is incorrect when he says that Obama lied about Muslim history. Obama did not.

        • Blake says:

          OK Randy, if you want to say that Barama EXAGGERATED MUSLIM HISTORY, for the express purpose of pleasing his audience, I can live with that- after all, like a whore, he seeks his “customer’s” pleasure and gratification, so he can advance his cause, so, OK- I’m good with that explanation .

        • Randy says:

          I don’t want to say Obama exaggerated Muslim history because that would be untrue. By exaggerating what was said (yes, you are the one exaggerating here) you are making the case that you are not a credible person.

    • Blake says:

      Although the Black Death helped the spread of Islam, I fail to see where they had any understanding of disease.
      How did they contribute?

  2. Blake says:

    My dislike for the liar Hussein grows with each utterance- how any thinking American could defend this person is beyond me- I guess they’re just inflexibly dogmatic and believe the lies.

  3. Darrel says:

    DAR
    Let’s bring Blake up to speed on some of these contributions:

    ****
    “The accomplishments of Islam’s Golden Age are too numerous to mention. Massive translation and copying projects made Greek, Roman, and Sanskrit knowledge available to Arabic-speaking scholars across the empire. Medieval Europe received the Hellenic classics that made the Renaissance possible mostly through Arabic translations. Building on Hellenic, Persian, and Hindu sources, physicians within the Islamic Empire advanced medical knowledge enormously. Perhaps their most significant single achievement was the establishment of medicine as a science based on observation and experimentation, rather than on conjecture. Islamic scientists developed the rudiments of what would later be called the scientific method.

    Seventy-five years after the death of Prophet Muhammad (s), the first of many free public hospitals was opened in Damascus. Asylums were maintained throughout the empire for the care of the mentally ill. In the early 10th century, Spanish physician Abu Bakr al-Razi introduced the use of antiseptics in cleaning wounds, and also made the connection between bacteria and infection. Al-Hasan published a definitive study on optics (the science of light and vision) in 965. Thirteenth-century Muslim physician Ibn al-Nafis discovered and accurately described the functioning of the human circulatory system. Islamic veterinary science led the field for centuries, particularly in the study and treatment of horses.

    Muslim alchemists (early forerunners of modern chemists) in the 10th to 14th centuries, inspired by ancient chemical formulas from China and India, are famous for the endless experiments they performed in their laboratories. Their goals ranged from pursuit of a chemical elixir bestowing enhanced life, to the transformation of base metals to gold. Although they never succeeded in their ultimate goals, they did make numerous valuable discoveries — among them the distillation of petroleum and the forging of steel.

    Roman techniques of manufacturing glass lenses stimulated Al-Hasan’s breakthrough in the field of optics (the science of light and vision), which demolished Aristotle’s theory that vision was the result of a ray emanating from the eye, encompassing an object, and bringing it back to the soul. Al-Hasan’s Book of Optics, published in 965, was first to document sight as visual images entering the eye, made perceptible by adequate light. This book remained the pre-eminent text in its field until 1610, when the work of European Johannes Kepler surpassed it.

    Islamic mathematicians refined algebra from its beginnings in Greece and Egypt, and developed trigonometry in pursuit of accurate ways to measure objects at a distance. Muslim scholars also made important and original contributions to astronomy. They collected and corrected previous astronomical data, built the world’s first observatory, and developed the astrolabe, an instrument that was once called “a mathematical jewel.”

    Islamic architects borrowed heavily from the Byzantine Empire which used domes and arches extensively throughout their cities. An example of this use can be seen in the Dome of the Rock, a famous mosque in Jerusalem.

    Avid students of both the heavens and the earth, Muslim scholars made detailed and accurate maps of both. Muslim mapmakers to accurately map distances around the earth refined longitude and latitude. Twelfth-century Persian Omar Khayyam developed a calendar so reliable that over 500 years it was off by only one day. The list goes on and on.”
    ***

    As I posted in April:

    http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5613&p=17964&hilit=islam+contributions#p17947

  4. Blake says:

    I am familiar with some of these “contributions”- but the way Hussein plays up these, while, I guess, allowing the Arab peoples to think for a moment that they haven’t been backsliding into obscourity for a thousand years, is dishonest.
    Yes, ONCE UPON A TIME they were educated, they advanced Math and science, by building on those who came before them (usually people they had conquered and subjugated), but as they say now- what have they done for us lately?
    The IED?
    Beheadings?
    Sharia Law?
    Hell, they kill each other- don’t even try to tell me about their advances in civilization- they have forgotten all of that- it’s a fairy tale to them. Reminding them will only tick them off, that they have slid so far down the ladder of civilization. Once they were something, but not now.

    • Darrel says:

      The backsliding of these “priest ridden people” is a warning to all, to not let the religious crazies (or political crazies) take over or have too much influence. We have similar battles here but us secularists have largely won the day. And for that we can be thankful. Our freethinker founders had similar battles in their day and largely, and amazingly, won. The brilliance of our godless constitution and anti-establishment 1st amendment saves us from such a plight. Hopefully.

      D.
      ——————–
      “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
      –Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

      • Blake says:

        The first amendment guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion- get it straight, or tend to your goats, D.

        • Darrel says:

          You can’t have freedom of religion without freedom from government imposed/coerced religion.

          The brilliance of the first amendment is that it provides both at the same time.

          D.
          —————
          “Our founders wisely adopted a secular, godless constitution, the first to derive its powers from “We, the People” and the consent of the governed, rather than claiming divine authority. They knew from the experience of religious persecution, witchhunts and religious discrimination in the Thirteen Colonies, and from the bloody history left behind in Europe, that the surest path to tyranny was to entangle church and state. That is why they adopted a secular constitution whose only references to religion are exclusionary, such as that there shall be no religious test for public office (Art. VI). There were no prayers offered at the Constitutional Convention, which shows their intent to separate religion from secular affairs.

          As Thomas Paine pointed out, “Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”

          http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/schoolprayer.php

        • Blake says:

          we HAVE freedom from government imposed/ coerced religion, Darrel, or can you not look around you? Anyone forcing YOU to kneel lately? Besides Obama- I realize THAT’S voluntary, but other than that?
          Talk about straw men, D- come on- bring your A game- that wasn’t even a “D”.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “we HAVE freedom from government imposed/ coerced religion,”>>

          DAR
          I didn’t claim we didn’t have it. In fact I specifically claimed we do.

          “The brilliance of the first amendment is that it provides both at the same time.”

          See the First Amendment. Pay attention.

          D.

      • Blake says:

        You see, you see religion as the problem, when it is always the “interpreters” who get the message wrong. You place blame in the wrong place but that is not unusual for an atheist, is it?

        • Darrel says:

          You say “the interpreters get the message wrong.”

          This is of course (humorously), according to your interpretation.

          And I didn’t say I see “religion as the problem.” I said the problem is when they have too much power or control in a society. See Islam. Truly “One Nation Under God.”

          Christianity is in decline in first world countries. Germany was profoundly Christian during the Nazi days, and that was a problem. Now they are mostly atheist, and… no problem.

          Regarding the fact that secular societies are far better at solving their social problems than “priest ridden” societies, see:

          ***
          Better off without Him

          New research suggests that the Christian virtues are best represented in godless societies

          http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/10/11/better-off-without-him/

          D.
          ——————-
          Godless Majority in Germany

          “For the first time, a majority of Germans profess no belief in a god. A survey in Der Spiegel revealed that the number of theists had dropped to 45%, down from 50% in 1993. During the same period, the number of avowed atheists rose from 20% to 28%. Only a quarter of Germans said they believe in Jesus Christ. The decline in religion in Germany matches the trend in other West European nations.”

          –Secular Humanist Bulletin, Vol. 13, No. 4 Winter 97/98, pg. 2

        • Blake says:

          Religion never has had too much power in society here, D- the perception, for you, is that ANY religion is too much, but that is just your opinion, and everybody has one. You can present all the atheistic cant you wish, but you cannot shake my belief- you are welcome to try, but in this you are wrong. Feel free to disbelieve all you want- God understands and believes in you. You might still go to hell, but that’s not my call
          “That’s above my pay grade.”

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “Religion never has had too much power in society here,…>>

          DAR
          I am sorry you are so unaware of basic American history. Let’s bring you up to speed with a few examples of “religion having too much power in society here.”

          ***
          PURITAN HERITAGE

          1. The Puritans came to the colonies so they could establish a Congregationalist religious tyranny, not personal religious freedom.

          2. Only church members could vote. It required a unanimous vote of church elders to be a church member.

          3. Only Congregationalist churches were allowed. Non-Congregationalists, even Presbyterian Puritans, were banished, often with a death sentence if they returned.

          4. Puritans punished even minor impious behavior. Failure to attend church earned a public whipping. A man was put into the stocks for kissing his wife in public on Sunday upon returning from three years at sea.

          5. Aside from killing 25 “witches,” the Puritans persecuted Quakers by cutting off ears, burning holes through women’s tongues with hot irons, floggings with whips, and hangings.

          CHRISTIANITY IN THE EARLY U.S.

          6. When the Constitution was ratified, many states had laws that forbid Catholics, Jews, Deists or unbelievers from holding public office.

          7. At the time of the Constitution, at least five states recognized only one Christian denomination as the state religion, with other denominations prohibited.

          At our nation’s founding, Christians were an undemocratic minority that opposed freedom of conscience and denied political rights based on religious beliefs.”
          –Howard Thompson

          D.

      • Blake says:

        This is true and the First Amendment addresses that by saying that Congress shall make no law establishing religion. Congress has made no such law and the worry was having one official religion for the country as England did. The Founders wanted there to be no official government religion so they prohibited Congress from establishing an official state religion. However, that does not mean that there cannot be religious symbols in society or in government. Having the symbols, so long as all religions are given the opportunity to participate, does not violate the First because Congress is not making a law. If government doing something made law then each time a politician mentioned God he would be violating the First. If action or deed by politicians rather than Congressional legislation established law then Obama made us a Christian nation by speaking at Notre Dame.

        The second part of it is nor prohibit the free exercise thereof which means EVERYWHERE. There is no official government religion. However, there is no absence of religion. The military (government organization) has Chaplains. The Congress opens each session with a prayer and there is a prayer group that consists of members of Congress.

        Darrel claims secular government but our founding documents mention God.

        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.
        It is true that the federal government was not founded on strictly Christian principles. The feds stuck with God or the Creator. However, the federal government is the union of the states and many of those states have Constitutions that specifically mention Jesus Christ as part of them. While the federal documents do not mention Christ it is silly to think that he was not part of our founding when he is found in state Constitutions.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: However, that does not mean that there cannot be religious symbols in society or in government.>>

          DAR
          Well, this is where it gets squishy. It depends on the context. Moses at the SCOTUS is okay specifically because it is in the context of an artistic motif of historic law givers (even imaginary ones).

          Having all religions be “able to participate” is not really a workable situation since our government buildings would be covered up with no end of clutter. And for what? We have churches for that. Keep them separate. It only causes division.

          Politicians can mention God of course, free speech.

          BLK:
          However, there is no absence of religion.>>

          DAR
          No, state employees, such as teachers, can not use their position to promote their religion. What a mess that would be (and sometimes is).

          BLK: The military (government organization) has Chaplains.>>

          DAR
          This is changing and adapting now as the US becomes more diverse. See the variety of tombstones rather than just crosses. I think they have an atheist one too. Note:

          “More than 130 religious groups have endorsed, or certified, chaplains to serve in uniform.”

          As long as they have rational counselors for the freethinkers I suppose.

          BLK: The Congress opens each session with a prayer…”>>

          DAR
          That was controversial from way back. It’s a little cloak of tradition. We’ll probably out grow it. Note:

          “When Benjamin Franklin [a deist] suggested opening sessions of the Constitutional Convention with prayer, there was so little interest that he recorded himself that the meeting adjourned without a vote on the motion.” –Freethought Today, pg. 3, 4/03

          BLK: and there is a prayer group that consists of members of Congress.>>

          DAR
          That’s nice. They can do what they want during their free time. When they’re on the job, best to follow the lemon test when making law:

          ***
          The “Lemon test” (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971), determines if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

          1. A law must have a secular purpose.
          2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
          3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

          BLK: “…our founding doc**ents mention God.”

          DAR
          They don’t mention your God. The founders believed in God. But that’s their private business.

          BLK: “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,…”

          Here’s the wording Jefferson had before congress meddled with it:

          “All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable.”

          BLK: “…many of those states have Constitutions that specifically mention Jesus Christ as part of them.”>>

          DAR
          Yes they do. States have all sorts of goofy unenforceable and unconstitutional things in their laws. Arkansas has a whole basket full including a law that an atheist can’t hold office or testify in court. These laws are unconstitutional and ignored.

          They didn’t leave Christ out of the constitution by accident. It was an on purpose.

          D.
          ——————-
          “At the time of its Founding, the United States seemed to be an infertile ground for religion. Many of the nation’s leaders – include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin – were not Christians, did not accept the authority of the Bible, and were hostile to organized religion. The attitude of the general public was one of apathy: in 1776, only 5 percent of the population were participating members of churches.”

          [Ian Robertson, _Sociology_, 3rd editions, Worth Publishing Inc.: New York, 1987, page 410]

  5. Barbara says:

    Darrell, and all those athesits will stand before God one day and give an account. Heaven will not be theirs and hell is an awful place. That stands for you also. The US is in a mess right now because we have taken God out of it and if we go against Israel we will really be cursed. Do you think atheists are going to be able to over rule God? I don’t think so!

    • Darrel says:

      I am as afraid of the Christian hell, to the exact degree that you are afraid of the Muslim hell. Which is to say, not so much. They have one you know. And it’s a doosey.

      Maybe Blake should believe in it, just to be safe?

      D.
      —————–
      “They who believe not shall have garments of fire fitted unto them; boiling water shall be poured on their heads; their bowels shall be dissolved thereby, and also their skins, and they shall be beaten with maces of iron.” -Koran, 22:19-21

      • Blake says:

        Believe, don’t believe- its all the same to me when it comes to you. What puzzles me is, if you are what you seem to be, an atheist, you would even care what others think.
        The truth is that you are insecure about yourself and feel no one takes you seriously, therefore you fill your postings with “facts” the more you have you subconsciously feel obscures your lack of real knowledge, and boosts a fragile, religiously threatened ego- I get it, I truly do, you poor, poor man.

        • Darrel says:

          “[why] you would even care what others think.”

          DAR
          Already explained several times. The US has too high of a ratio of rightwing goosestepping cult members. These are the people, like you, who “know they are right” and aren’t open to changing your beliefs even when shown to be wrong. It’s not healthy to have this many nuts in a society. If you want to stay home and watch TV and be a dumb dumb, fine. But if you are going to display your ignorance in a public forum and pretend that it can withstand scrutiny, then to the degree your information is wrong, it’s going to get roasted. That’s the service I provide. Because of your penchant for sloppy thinking (well developed over many years) you provide a very, very, big target.

          As for me being “insecure, fragile” or “religiously threatened.” I’ve tried to experience feelings like that just to see what it would be like but alas, just wasn’t able to.

          D.

  6. Blake says:

    Darrel, all your examples are from BEFORE the Constitution was ratified. Slavery existed then also, but it does not now- another example of you twisting facts and taking them out of context- try to cite some examples in a more recent time, say the last two hundred years.
    Do keep in mind that just as there will always be racists, so will there be other closed- minded people and one instance does not an argument make.

    • Darrel says:

      BLK: Darrel, all your examples are from BEFORE the Constitution was ratified.>>

      DAR
      Right. I am saying they made the constitution the way they did *because* they didn’t want this kind of puritanical nonsense going on. When religions use the power of government, bad things happen.

      BLK: try to cite some examples in a more recent time, say the last two hundred years.>>

      DAR
      Of what? Religion having too much power? I don’t know that it does. It’s pretty neutered and tending more so every day. Catholics don’t listen to the pope much (contraception?) and protestants don’t know their Bibles very well. The problem is when religion gets the power of government endorsement and there is always this pressure, mostly by Christians, to use the power of government to endorse their religion. They finally got the god phrase put on paper money in 1956, they got religion inserted into the pledge in 1954 (the founders never heard either of these phrases). If it wasn’t for the fine folks at the ACLU we would we (ironically) be bumping into graven images of the ten commandments every time we go to the court house.

      So for the most part I am pleased with the separation here. But back to the original point, the warning of Islam is to keep government out of the business of religion, and vise versa. This leads to the health and success of both.

      See Europe for an example of state run religion running it into the ground.

      D.
      ——————
      “Adult church attendance in Britain is at 7.7% and only 2% now attends an Anglican church regularly.”
      –Economist/New Your Times, Dec. 22, 2000

  7. Big Dog says:

    But see Darrel, that is where you are wrong. There is nothing in the Constitution about not having the TC or a menorah or any other religious symbol in a court house or government building. Those acts are not Congress making a law establishing religion.

    The ACLU is full of communists whose founder freely admitted that communism was the goal in the US. They demand crosses come off government owned cemeteries, religious pictures come off walls of government buildings and they do it in violation of the Constitution.

    You use the word separation. It is NOT in the Constitution. Nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

    You confuse people freely exercising a right with state run religion. In order to be state run Congress would have to pass a law establishing religion (a violation of the First). Absent that, there is no violation with respect to the establishment part but there are plenty of violations of the part where people are not to be prohibited.

    The problem is the ACLU wants to remove religion from society which violates the First. Each time they try to stop the FREE exercise thereof they are violating the Constitution.

    • Darrel says:

      Remember, the supreme Court interprets the Constitution (you don’t). They interpret the constitution (via the Lemon test), to say you can’t have religious symbols on a court house unless it is in a non-religious context. This is established law, with much precedent.

      When they say what the constitution means, it has weight. When you say what the constitution means, it has no weight. Them are the rules, see the constitution.

      BIGD: The ACLU is full of communists>>

      DAR
      I know lots of people in the ACLU. I don’t know any communists. So you’re lying again. Best to avoid that.

      The ACLU used to defend communists of course, since in America, you are allowed to be one if you like. It’s a civil liberty. Note:

      ***
      “In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was “inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarianism in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle.” –wiki blurb
      ***

      Right wingers love to tell lies about the ACLU. I wish they wouldn’t.

      BIGD: They demand crosses come off government owned cemeteries,>>

      DAR
      Right, the government has no business endorsing/establishing religion by using their power to display crosses. We have churches for that. People can of course put all sorts of things on their own graves.

      BIGD: religious pictures come off walls of government buildings>>

      DAR
      But of course. Why should our secular government be endorsing a religion (which is always divisive) with such artwork? Best to stay neutral. And this is *not* in violation of the constitution, but perfectly in line with it according to SCOTUS, with considerable precedent.

      BIGD: You use the word separation. It is NOT in the Constitution.>>

      DAR
      A common complaint but one that fails. As I’ve cited several times:

      ***
      The phrase, “a wall of separation between church and state,” was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson’s phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the Constitution; neither do “separation of powers,” “interstate commerce,” “right to privacy,” and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.”

      http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

      BIGD: You confuse people freely exercising a right with state run religion.>>

      DAR
      Actually, I don’t. Your understanding of the First Amendment and the established precedent is apparently very rudimentary.

      BIGD: The problem is the ACLU wants to remove religion from society…>>

      DAR
      This is an absurd caricature, flatly false and reveals a profound ignorance. The ACLU has on hundreds if not thousands of cases intervened to protect the civil liberties of those whose civil right to freely practice their religion has been infringed.

      I can bury you in examples.

      Get informed. The link below would be a good place to start.

      D.
      —————-
      “The Constitution does not endorse any religious creed, and it does not recognize any power of government to decide theological questions. Beliefs about the nature of God is a proper subject for individuals, families, religious communities, and theologians, but not for government bodies such as the U.S. Congress or a local school board.”

      Link to ACLU removed by owner

      • Blake says:

        the more you blather, the more ridiculous you seem.

      • Big Dog says:

        No links to ACLU, meathead or Kos.

        I am informed. ACLU is interested in making us Communists and wants to remove mush of religion. They jump in in some cases but those are for their benefit and not the benefit of the complaintant. ACLU gets big bucks from government for these kinds of suits. Take that away and they would stop.

        The ACLU is anti American. If the next terrorist attack is on their HQ I would not cry for them.

        • Darrel says:

          “ACLU is interested in making us Communists”

          “ACLU gets big bucks from government”

          DAR
          How unfortunate that you are not interested in being taken seriously.

          Someday I would like to find an honest, intelligent conservative who will stand up and defend their beliefs politely and with intellectual honesty.

          If you know of such a place, perhaps point me in that direction. All you seem to have here is invective, spleen, constant dishonesty, vile smears and tantrums.

          Is this the best conservatives have to offer?

          I don’t think so.

          But if I were a conservative, and I am on several issues, I would be, and am sorely embarrassed by this kind of behavior. It’s disgusting.

          D.

  8. Big Dog says:

    < href="http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/stokjok/Founders.html">Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU was a Communist:

    “I joined. I don’t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted…”

    He was also quoted as saying:

    I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as Director of the American Civil Liberties Union … I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities, chiefly against war, fascism and imperialism; and have traveled constantly in the United States to areas of conflict over workers’ rights to strike and organize.

    My chief aversion is the system of greed, private greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment …

    Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion.
    I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.

    Communism is the goal.

    From an excerpt appearing in an editorial (“Unmasked”) published in the The San Antonio [Texas] Light (18 October 1935; Pg. 20) is fairly true to and nearly contemporaneous with the above version, though it presumably includes more of what Baldwin is said to have reported of his activities since graduating in 1905,

    It is clear that it was founded by communists and that communism was the goal. It might be a right wing myth to you but Baldwin was clear about it.

    Jefferson was not answering a question about the meaning of the First Amendment. He was answering a letter from the Baptists who complained that they felt the state was granting them rights to religion rather than them having it. Jefferson would not address a state issue but addressed it on the federal level.

    He wrote the letter for political purposes and his intent was to show that he did not agree with having certain observations that were undertaken in Britain.

    His letter indicates that there should be a wall of separation so that government may not dictate religion.

    Legal scholars have stated that the phrase does not exist in the Constitution and that the document states Congress shall make no law establishing religion. Recognizing any religion does not establish it. If it did then Obama made us all Muslims with his recognition of Islam and his ridiculous assertion that America was a Muslim nation.

    Having a Cross at a cemetery does not establish a religion. Having any religious symbol in a government building does not establish a religion. These ony recognize the religions, something the Constitution does not forbid. It forbids Congress from establishing religion and it prohibits government from prohibiting free exercise. Therefore, if children want to pray at school they may. If a graduating class decides it wants a prayer it may have one. If the government does not allow it then it is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

    Allowing it does not establish an official religion because only Congress could do that (but is prohibited from doing so by the Constitution). The above examples are where religion is recognized, not established.

    Very good piece about Jefferson Letter

    • Darrel says:

      BIGD: “From an excerpt… (18 October 1935;”

      DAR
      You are quoting junk from 1935? Seriously? As I have already shown, the ACLU *banned* communists in 1940. So if this was 1935, you would have something to talk about.

      BIGD: It is clear that it was founded by communists>>

      DAR
      That’s nice. Those folks are dead. Why should anyone care today? You guys are still fighting communists? Oh how you miss the old days!

      BIGD: Jefferson would not address a state issue but addressed it on the federal level.>>

      DAR
      Good point. The US constitution is after all, “on the federal level.” And it trumps the states. If you don’t like that, secede.

      BIGD: Legal scholars have stated that the phrase does not exist in the Constitution>>

      DAR
      You don’t have to be a legal scholar to know that! It’s quite short. You should read it carefully. Better, read the case law on these issues, because private interpretation doesn’t matter. You really do not have a basic understanding of the precedent regarding the establishment clause.

      BIDG: “…the doc**ent states Congress shall make no law establishing religion.”>>

      DAR
      No it doesn’t. You can’t even get a few words right. The document states:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”

      Each word is VERY important. Many books have been written about that sentence.

      Maybe start with something simple:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

      BIGD: Obama made us all Muslims with his recognition of Islam and his ridiculous assertion that America was a Muslim nation.>>

      DAR
      When did he say that? Why do you say things you know are false?

      BIGD: “Having a Cross at a cemetery does not establish a religion.>>

      DAR
      I am sorry you have a grade school understanding of the establishment clause.

      BIGD: if children want to pray at school they may.>>

      DAR
      Of course they can, and do. And the ACLU defends their right to do this. But what they cannot do is have a state employee, while on the job and representing the state, lead them in prayer. That violates the establishment clause as determined by the SCOTUS.

      BIGD: If a graduating class decides it wants a prayer it may have one.>>

      DAR
      Wrong. Note:

      ***
      “The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause. It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which ‘establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.’ ” Id., at 587 (citations omitted) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678 (1984)).
      ***

      Also, from the 2000 Supreme court decision on prayer a football games:

      “The delivery of a message such as the invocation here — on school property,
      at school-sponsored events, over the school’s public address system, by a
      speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of the school
      faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages
      school prayer — is not properly characterized as ‘private’ speech.”

      In response to the proposition that students had voted for the “invocation”:

      “Through its election scheme, the District has established a governmental mechanism that turns the school into a forum for religious debate and empowers the student body majority to subject students of minority views to constitutionally improper messages. The award of that power alone is not acceptable.”

      Making the central case:

      “Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by the Court prohibits any public
      school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during or after the
      school day. But the religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged
      when the State affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer.”

      D.

  9. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, If you think you have some mission to change people then you can stop coming here. You chided me for my statement that Liberalism is a mental disorder and then you proceed to call conservatives right wing cult members and nuts.

    I don’t know what you think you are accomplishing but rarely do you roast anyone or show them wrong. You cut and paste info from left wing sites or those who agree with your position and you present things that are either wrong or someone else’s opinion.

    If you feel it is your duty to change people then go into psychiatry. However, I will not allow this kind of stupidity here. Your MISSION. Take it someplace else.

    I see the world infested with liberal jackasses like you but don’t see it as my mission to change them. I just want them to leave me alone and pay their own way.

    I am tired of paying for liberal mental cases.

    Why don’t you go back to the circle jerk site of yours and play with your like minded friends and stay away from here. If you truly believe you have a mission then you have failed because you are not changing minds here. Most people who read my site comment off line about what an arrogant moron you are. So you failed.

    • Darrel says:

      “comment off line about what an arrogant moron”

      DAR
      Oh I am arrogant, no doubt about it. But is it with any basis? I think one of you conservatives should really set me straight.

      Factually, you know.

      You might encourage your these off line people to join in and teach me a thing or two. That would be great. Maybe they have a friend who knows something about these things. I am always open to learning new things and would never say I am right and not open to changing my belief about any topic (as you and Blake have said).

      That’s what cult members say.

      I change beliefs when I am given good reasons. That’s what impresses me. Good arguments. Not the name calling and tantrums.

      D.