Ask Newt why he thinks atheists want Muslim terrorists to win.

Travis · 15th December 2011, 01:25 PM

Back a bit Newt gave a talk where he alleged that secular Americans were actively trying to let Muslim terrorists win and take over the USA. At the time he wasn't even running for President so no one much took it up with him at the time.

But now he is running for President and since the Republicans seem to be running their primary on the idea that they will have debate after debate until everyone is just sick of them someone should take the opportunity to ask him why he thinks this is so?

I mean under what strain of logic do you think Atheists want a radical religious sect to win control of America?

Upchurch · 15th December 2011, 02:23 PM

Are you referring to this or something else?

Carnivore · 15th December 2011, 02:23 PM

Well, because we're evil.

Humes fork · 15th December 2011, 02:25 PM

Unfortunately I doubt he will be confronted with the question.

Denver · 15th December 2011, 02:40 PM

The word Atheist, in reality, means different things to different people. Some meanings are well beyond just "not believing in any deity", and I think to some people include anti-God, to anti-Christian, to anti-moral.

If you live in an environment where not believing in a the Christian God is the same as denying your Christian morals, which to you pretty much overlaps to normal society and ethics and American values, you can see why someone labeling themselves Atheist would seem to them as equivalent to a radical or an anti-American or even a terrorist.

I expect Gingrich (or at least the people to whom he is speaking) understand the term "atheism" in this manner. Given that kind of understanding, it is not unreasonable that they would feel threatened by those who label themselves atheists. So to answer the OP, that is the kind of logic I think is going on.

I don't see these people as stupid: just misinformed of the term as defined by atheists themselves. Maybe there needs to be an educational campaign, like the "Hello, my name is X, and I'm a Mormon".

Travis · 15th December 2011, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Are you referring to this or something else?

I think the talk in question was in Georgia but that sounds very close to the remarks I remember so.....maybe it is the same one.

Brainster · 15th December 2011, 03:46 PM

Quote here:

Quote:

"I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9," Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

Not sure what he means by that, but it does not sound like "secular Americans were actively trying to let Muslim terrorists win and take over the USA."

leftysergeant · 15th December 2011, 03:50 PM

Only in that sebacious cyst that serves as Newt's brain can a "secular atheist country" be dominated by a fundamentalist religion.

Travis · 15th December 2011, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Quote here:

Not sure what he means by that, but it does not sound like "secular Americans were actively trying to let Muslim terrorists win and take over the USA."

Well the other possibility is that Newt thinks the Muslim Fundamentalists win and they turn America into a secular atheist culture for some reason.

Either way he thinks that one is somehow going to happen with the other. And that doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

mhaze · 15th December 2011, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

....under what strain of logic do you think Atheists want a radical religious sect to win control of America?

Oh, I think it's a complete misunderstanding. The athiests who are so quick to stand up for the rights of muslims to build their mosque next to the 911 attack site, who are so quick to pounce on any evidence of christianity in the winter holidays....you know, those athiests?

The ones who are so quick to quash every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere, but who have a blind eye to muslims on their little prayer rug five times a day?

Wait...."athiest" are just anti_Christian.

I got it.

Thanks. Oh, and no sympathy from me for your current whining.

Brainster · 15th December 2011, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

Well the other possibility is that Newt thinks the Muslim Fundamentalists win and they turn America into a secular atheist culture for some reason.

Either way he thinks that one is somehow going to happen with the other. And that doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

I agree there. Actually my reading of his statement is that he was implying that a secular America might lack the will to stand up to radical Islam. Not sure why he believes this.

johnny karate · 15th December 2011, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Oh, I think it's a complete misunderstanding. The athiests who are so quick to stand up for the rights of muslims to build their mosque next to the 911 attack site, who are so quick to pounce on any evidence of christianity in the winter holidays....you know, those athiests?

The ones who are so quick to quash every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere, but who have a blind eye to muslims on their little prayer rug five times a day?

Oh... you mean the atheists that exist only in your fevered imagination. Something tells me the rest of us don't have too much to fear from them.

rwguinn · 15th December 2011, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Quote here:

Not sure what he means by that, but it does not sound like "secular Americans were actively trying to let Muslim terrorists win and take over the USA."

How in seven hells does a religion "dominate" a "secular atheist country"???

Stacko · 15th December 2011, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

I agree there. Actually my reading of his statement is that he was implying that a secular America might lack the will to stand up to radical Islam. Not sure why he believes this.

I don't know if he believes it but it plays into the current make up of the electorate. It's still ugly out there for non-believers in America or even Canada. The religious rank atheists as trust worthy as rapists according to a recent study.

Story.

Quote:

Many religious people don’t like atheists, and in fact would apparently rate them alongside rapists on levels of trust, suggests a new Canadian study that claims to be one of the first psychological probes into anti-atheist prejudice.

GodMark2 · 15th December 2011, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

How in seven hells does a religion "dominate" a "secular atheist country"???

$\begin{align} Secular Atheist &= Not Christian Like Us \\<br /> Islamic &= Not Christian Like Us \end{align} \\<br /> \therefore Secular Atheist &= Islamic\\ \end{align}$

Travis · 15th December 2011, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Oh, I think it's a complete misunderstanding. The athiests who are so quick to stand up for the rights of muslims to build their mosque next to the 911 attack site, who are so quick to pounce on any evidence of christianity in the winter holidays....you know, those athiests?

Oh, you mean people that understand the important of Freedom Of Religion and the need for tolerance. Who may not necessarily be atheists.

And I have never encountered an atheist that is against people putting Christianity into Christmas so long as it is not on government land.

Originally Posted by mhaze

The ones who are so quick to quash every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere, but who have a blind eye to muslims on their little prayer rug five times a day?

So........people from some alternate universe?

Originally Posted by mhaze

Wait...."athiest" are just anti_Christian.

An alternate universe where Christianity is the only religion?

Quote:

I got it.

Thanks. Oh, and no sympathy from me for your current whining.

Do you think an atheist would be more comfortable being ruled by fundamentalist Muslims?

mhaze · 15th December 2011, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

Oh, you mean people that understand the important of Freedom Of Religion and the need for tolerance. Who may not necessarily be atheists.

And I have never encountered an atheist that is against people putting Christianity into Christmas so long as it is not on government land......

Look, don't just repeat sound-good phrases. Think a bit about what you are doing and saying. Here's an example.

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

But there are many other examples. The above is the oath of office for members of Congress and for federal judges.

And it's.....taken.....on.....government.......land... ..

Originally Posted by Travis

Oh, you mean people that understand the important of Freedom Of Religion and the need for tolerance. Who may not necessarily be atheists.

So........people from some alternate universe?

An alternate universe where Christianity is the only religion?

Do you think an atheist would be more comfortable being ruled by fundamentalist Muslims?

Please, don't ask ME questions that YOU need to answer. It's your OP. Not mine. I'm only trying to comment on it.

Think it over and consider if it isn't true that (A) in many, many cases, athiests...and liberals, in general...are giving muslims a "free pass" where they clamp down harshly on Christians.

A lot of the anti-Christian rhetoric on this forum is simply hate talk. Deal with it. A lot of anti-muslim rhetoric is hate talk, but a fair part of it is not...it's concern over the fact that islam is a system of government as well as a religion.

gnome · 15th December 2011, 07:59 PM

You mean, atheists that believe that private displays of religion should be protected, and public displays made by the government should not?

I think you're misunderstanding why atheists might object to one display but not another on that basis. Or you're being deliberately obtuse.

A challenge: can you explain what atheists want for "separation of church and state" in a manner that you believe most atheists would agree is accurate? If you can't manage that I would say you don't really understand. Either that or we're all lying.

Regnad Kcin · 15th December 2011, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Oh, I think it's a complete misunderstanding. The athiests who are so quick to stand up for the rights of muslims to build their mosque next to the 911 attack site, who are so quick to pounce on any evidence of christianity in the winter holidays....you know, those athiests?

The ones who are so quick to quash every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere, but who have a blind eye to muslims on their little prayer rug five times a day?

Wait...."athiest" are just anti_Christian.

I got it.

Oh, you "got it" all right. But just keep floatin' that little boat and blowin' bubbles in the bath.

leftysergeant · 15th December 2011, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Think it over and consider if it isn't true that (A) in many, many cases, athiests...and liberals, in general...are giving muslims a "free pass" where they clamp down harshly on Christians.

Cow cookies. Learn some history.

The banning of school prayer as it was practiced up until the 1960s was actually about defending the rights of both those Christians who disapproved of the practice and those of other on no religion who felt put upon by the government intrusion into their spiritual life. To require a Christian child to pray formulaicly in public is to violate Christ's own instructions regarding prayer. (Auth: Matthew 6:5-6.) It is, of course, impossible to effectively b ar a child from praying exactly as Christ commanded. (Auth: Matthew 6:5-6)

Muslims, by contrast, are required to pray in company with their fellows. Thus, designating a place where they might gather to pray is the only way to not violate their rights to worship. That they are given a separate place, and forbidden to require that any kufir join them protects the rights of kufir and Muslm alike, as required by the First Amendment.

And don't give me any crap about "student organized and lead " prayer being an alterantive. It still distinguishes the practicing Christian from the non-practing or the doctrinally correct Christian. They are praying "to be seen of men" and are WRONG.

In an overly-zealous community dominated by fundamentalists, refusal to participate in the "student lead" prayers can and frequently do mark the dissenter for harrassment and harm by his peers.

I would, of course, stipulate that any school which would prohibit an individual student's saying grace over his lunch, or making the sign of the cross or invoking God by saying "bism 'Allah" over it is going a step too far and prohibiting a private devotion.

Do not worry about the atheists or the Muslims taking over right now. Worry about the Dominionist dirtbags taking over the military academies. Those fools will get us into a holy war if they have a chance. Allen West is more a threat to our religious liberties than is any Sufi imam in NYC.

Redtail · 15th December 2011, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Look, don't just repeat sound-good phrases. Think a bit about what you are doing and saying. Here's an example.

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

But there are many other examples. The above is the oath of office for members of Congress and for federal judges.

And it's.....taken.....on.....government.......land... ..

Please, don't ask ME questions that YOU need to answer. It's your OP. Not mine. I'm only trying to comment on it.

Think it over and consider if it isn't true that (A) in many, many cases, athiests...and liberals, in general...are giving muslims a "free pass" where they clamp down harshly on Christians.

A lot of the anti-Christian rhetoric on this forum is simply hate talk. Deal with it. A lot of anti-muslim rhetoric is hate talk, but a fair part of it is not...it's concern over the fact that islam is a system of government as well as a religion.

So you share Newt 's irrational fears. K.

Robrob · 15th December 2011, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Oh, I think it's a complete misunderstanding. The athiests who are so quick to stand up for the rights of muslims to build their mosque next to the 911 attack site, who are so quick to pounce on any evidence of christianity in the winter holidays....you know, those athiests?

Let me know if you need help understanding the difference between free practice of religion and government support of one religion above others.

P.S. What "mosque next to the 911 attack site?" Or do you consider two city blocks "next to?"

Quote:

The ones who are so quick to quash every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere, but who have a blind eye to muslims on their little prayer rug five times a day?

Once again, you confuse the concepts of free practice of religion and government support of one religion above others. Why is that?

Originally Posted by mhaze

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

But there are many other examples. The above is the oath of office for members of Congress and for federal judges.

And it's.....taken.....on.....government.......land... ..

So your point is the phrase should be removed from the oath?

Quote:

Think it over and consider if it isn't true that (A) in many, many cases, athiests...and liberals, in general...are giving muslims a "free pass" where they clamp down harshly on Christians.

You do realize this is a majority "Christian" nation? Feel free to provide examples of your supposed "harsh clamp downs" on the majority?

Quote:

A lot of the anti-Christian rhetoric on this forum is simply hate talk. Deal with it. A lot of anti-muslim rhetoric is hate talk, but a fair part of it is not...it's concern over the fact that islam is a system of government as well as a religion.

Your paranoid fantasy aside, feel free to elaborate how a decentralized religion, without formal clergy, with multiple sects and splinter groups is somehow a "government?"

UnrepentantSinner · 15th December 2011, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Oh, I think it's a complete misunderstanding. The athiests who are so quick to stand up for the rights of muslims to build their mosque next to the 911 attack site, who are so quick to pounce on any evidence of christianity in the winter holidays....you know, those athiests?

The ones who are so quick to quash every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere, but who have a blind eye to muslims on their little prayer rug five times a day?

Originally Posted by mhaze

Look, don't just repeat sound-good phrases...

madfoot · 15th December 2011, 10:39 PM

Newt is a smart person. He just happens to lie extremely well.

Travis · 15th December 2011, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Look, don't just repeat sound-good phrases. Think a bit about what you are doing and saying. Here's an example.

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

But there are many other examples. The above is the oath of office for members of Congress and for federal judges.

And it's.....taken.....on.....government.......land... ..

Is there a requirement that they say the last sentence?

Originally Posted by mhaze

Please, don't ask ME questions that YOU need to answer. It's your OP. Not mine. I'm only trying to comment on it.

Think it over and consider if it isn't true that (A) in many, many cases, athiests...and liberals, in general...are giving muslims a "free pass" where they clamp down harshly on Christians.

I've never heard of this happening. Atheists deal with whoever happens to be intolerant around them. Every atheist I know wants to fight Al Qaeda.

Originally Posted by mhaze

A lot of the anti-Christian rhetoric on this forum is simply hate talk. Deal with it. A lot of anti-muslim rhetoric is hate talk, but a fair part of it is not...it's concern over the fact that islam is a system of government as well as a religion.

You mean unlike Christianity that didn't itself engage in holy wars and huge purges of it's own?

UnrepentantSinner · 15th December 2011, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

Is there a requirement that they say the last sentence?

No, there is not. It also isn't part of the earliest versions of the oath of office or enlistment either.

Travis · 16th December 2011, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

No, there is not. It also isn't part of the earliest versions of the oath of office or enlistment either.

Then I fail to see the relevance.

Bri · 16th December 2011, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by Robrob

P.S. What "mosque next to the 911 attack site?" Or do you consider two city blocks "next to?"

Meanwhile, there are plenty of churches in the area as well. And at least one synagogue. If mhaze is suggesting that allowing a mosque in the area is somehow discriminatory against Christianity, I'd like to know how.

Quote:

Your paranoid fantasy aside, feel free to elaborate how a decentralized religion, without formal clergy, with multiple sects and splinter groups is somehow a "government?"

I'm guessing he's referring to sharia law? Of course, other religions -- Judaism is one example -- have their own laws as well, and like sharia law there is generally no consensus as to how it is practiced. So I'm curious as to what non-hate-talk anti-muslim rhetoric he's referring to and what the concern is exactly.

-Bri

Hawk one · 16th December 2011, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by Bri

Meanwhile, there are plenty of churches in the area as well. And at least one synagogue. If mhaze is suggesting that allowing a mosque in the area is somehow discriminatory against Christianity, I'd like to know how.

Not to mention that it wasn't really a planned mosque as much as it was a planned community center with some praying area in it.

mhaze · 16th December 2011, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

Is there a requirement that they say the last sentence?.....

The fact that any oath may be affirmed, instead of sworn to, and that alternate books can be used instead of the bible, does not negate in one bit my point.

You don't want references to god in public places. But our very oaths of public office are only affirmed by individual choice, not the mandated requirements by atheists. Individual choice is not a factor for the same athiests regarding various behaviors they would force on the public, is it?

Originally Posted by Travis

....I've never heard of this happening. Atheists deal with whoever happens to be intolerant around them. Every atheist I know wants to fight Al Qaeda....

I don't particularly care about who you know, but I do know one thing. Fundamentalist Muslims, by their basic belief set, want to kill you, the athiest. Fundamentalist Christians, or any other type of Christian, do not want to kill you.

Originally Posted by Travis

....You mean unlike Christianity that didn't itself engage in holy wars and huge purges of it's own?

see above...

leftysergeant · 16th December 2011, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

I don't particularly care about who you know, but I do know one thing. Fundamentalist Muslims, by their basic belief set, want to kill you, the athiest. Fundamentalist Christians, or any other type of Christian, do not want to kill you.

Bull feathers. Supposed "Christians" have set an awful lot of bombs in the last thirty years.

Almo · 16th December 2011, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Cow cookies. Learn some history.

The banning of school prayer as it was practiced up until the 1960s was actually about defending the rights of both those Christians who disapproved of the practice and those of other on no religion who felt put upon by the government intrusion into their spiritual life...

Lefty nailed that one. Solid post, dude.

mhaze · 16th December 2011, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Bull feathers. Supposed "Christians" have set an awful lot of bombs in the last thirty years.

Irrelevant.

Christians do not have a mandate to kill atheists.

Muslims do.

What do you need, a Koran cite?

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91

Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you. 9:123

This isn't complicated. "People of the book" include Christians and Jews. "Disbelievers" are, duhhh, Athiests.

Random · 16th December 2011, 07:31 AM

It’s all a matter of perception. Christians in the US have received preferential treatment for so long that anything that challenges that entitlement seems like an attack. The system has been crooked for so long it looks straight to them.

The pledge of allegiance debate is a perfect example. Christians up in arms about banning the pledge from schools simply because it mentions God, while non-Christians scratch their heads and wonder why “under God” was tacked on in the first place.

gnome · 16th December 2011, 07:33 AM

@mhaze -- There are a lot of things that Christians are supposed to do in the bible that most Christians don't. Are you unwilling to suppose that the same is true of Muslims?

Bri · 16th December 2011, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

I don't particularly care about who you know, but I do know one thing. Fundamentalist Muslims, by their basic belief set, want to kill you, the athiest. Fundamentalist Christians, or any other type of Christian, do not want to kill you.

You apparently don't know the difference between fundamentalism and radicalism.

But, yes, radical Christians have in the past persecuted and killed people who don't believe as they do.

-Bri

UnrepentantSinner · 16th December 2011, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

The fact that any oath may be affirmed, instead of sworn to, and that alternate books can be used instead of the bible, does not negate in one bit my point.

Actually, the fact that it can be affirmed has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make. The phrase "so help me God" does not appear in the original oath of office for the president or military serive does. Further, you seem to be conflating the made up protocols for swearing in as president with swearing in for court tesitmony and taking the oath of office (re: placing one's hand on a Bible).

That's something someone who had ever taken an oath of office would not confuse (as I have 3-4 times per my best recollection).

Originally Posted by mhaze

You don't want references to god in public places. But our very oaths of public office are only affirmed by individual choice, not the mandated requirements by atheists. Individual choice is not a factor for the same athiests regarding various behaviors they would force on the public, is it?

Your fantasies about this topic are nearly as amising as your conspiracy theories regarding AGW. Neither of which have any effect on reality though.

Originally Posted by mhaze

I don't particularly care about who you know...

Of course you don't. You have constructed a reality in your own mind and if any fact contradicts it, it must, inherently, be wrong.

Originally Posted by mhaze

...but I do know one thing. Fundamentalist Muslims, by their basic belief set, want to kill you, the athiest.

All of your blather about crazed, radicalized jihadis has, and I'm going to type this slowly for you - N O T H I N G TO DO WITH Newt's crazy comments about atheists supposedly wanting to have Muslims take over America and impose sharia law. What exactly about the slander and insanity of Newt's comment are you having such trouble comprehending?

tyr_13 · 16th December 2011, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Irrelevant.

Christians do not have a mandate to kill atheists.

Muslims do.

What do you need, a Koran cite?

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91

Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you. 9:123

This isn't complicated. "People of the book" include Christians and Jews. "Disbelievers" are, duhhh, Athiests.

No, Christians have a mandate to kill homosexuals, 'witches', and not to work on Sunday or where blended cloth.

Bri · 16th December 2011, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Irrelevant.

Christians do not have a mandate to kill atheists.

Muslims do.

What do you need, a Koran cite?

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91

Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you. 9:123

This isn't complicated. "People of the book" include Christians and Jews. "Disbelievers" are, duhhh, Athiests.

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

-Bri

GreyArea · 16th December 2011, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

Back a bit Newt gave a talk where he alleged that secular Americans were actively trying to let Muslim terrorists win and take over the USA.

Gingrich is about sixty years older than the two children he mentioned. So, in his speech to Hagee's evangelical/charismatic church, Gingrich claimed that he is "convinced" that by 2070 the radical Islamists who today make up less than 0.6% of the population will grow to a large enough plurality (or a majority) to "potentially" "dominate" the U.S. Lets look at some numbers.

How large does a voting bloc have to be to dominate a country as large and populous as the U.S.? 10%? 20%? More? Do the children count, or do they not because they can't vote?

The U.S. population is estimated to be about 363,500,000 in 2030.
http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/po...geSex2005.html

The Pew Foundation has projected the U.S. Muslim population to 2030. They estimate it to be about 6.2 million then. "The Muslim share of the U.S. population (adults and children) is projected to grow from 0.8% in 2010 to 1.7% in 2030, making Muslims roughly as numerous as Jews or Episcopalians are in the United States today."
http://pewforum.org/future-of-the-gl...-americas.aspx

I know there are plenty of people in the U.S., including many Christians, who think that Jews run the country today. So maybe it wouldn't be much of a stretch for them to believe that a different 1.7% could run things in another two decades. But it's still balderdash in either case.

By 2070, the population here is projected to be around 463,000,000 people.
http://www.census.gov/population/pro...ry/np-t5-g.txt

I haven't found any actual estimates for religious demographics in 2070. But if we were to continue Pew's trend of a doubling of the percentage every 20 years, by 2050 it would be 3.4% and by 2070 it would be 6.8%. If we double the absolute number, the percentage by 2070 would be 5.4%.

I doubt the growth rate would remain that high for that long. First, it is easier to have a high growth rate when your absolute numbers are smaller than it is when they are larger. Look at Canada's forecasts in the Pew report for an example. Second, my projection does not account for the number of Americans who will leave their childhood upbringings in Islam, as today's kids and tomorrow's grandkids assimilate into an increasingly secular society. As Pew says "By 2030, … more than four-in-ten of the Muslims in the U.S. (44.9%) are expected to be nativeborn," up from 35.5% circa 2010. That's a lot more room for people to move away from the mosque. Thirdly, today's Muslim Americans are mainly first-generation immigrants and probably have a higher birthrate than their daughters and grand-daughters will have. And finally, these estimates are high in terms of imagining political power because they include people under 18, who can't vote, are not likely to be able to vote by 2070, and usually make up about a quarter of any population.

So, 6.8% is similar to the proportion of Historically Black Churches in the U.S. today (6.9% according to Pew). And 5.4% is the percentage of Mainline Methodists today. I don't see any domination by either of them now, so why should such small numbers dominate us later?
Percentages from this PDF: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/re...study-full.pdf , page 110.

In addition, my wild projection is for the total number of Muslims in the U.S. The number of Islamists would have to be smaller, and the number of radical Islamists (the group Gingrich identified) would be even smaller than that.

I suspect that Gingrich was consciously lying to curry favor with a particular audience. I don't think he is so stupid as to actually believe what he was telling them.

15th December 2011, 01:25 PM	#1
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,943	Ask Newt why he thinks atheists want Muslim terrorists to win. Back a bit Newt gave a talk where he alleged that secular Americans were actively trying to let Muslim terrorists win and take over the USA. At the time he wasn't even running for President so no one much took it up with him at the time. But now he is running for President and since the Republicans seem to be running their primary on the idea that they will have debate after debate until everyone is just sick of them someone should take the opportunity to ask him why he thinks this is so? I mean under what strain of logic do you think Atheists want a radical religious sect to win control of America?
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

15th December 2011, 02:23 PM	#3
Carnivore Salad Dodger Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 1,384	Well, because we're evil.
	__________________ "It's backwards thinking like this that made me leave Manchester. You Guinness swilling, Marmite blaspheming animal." - Malfie Henpox

15th December 2011, 02:25 PM	#4
Humes fork Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,357	Unfortunately I doubt he will be confronted with the question.
	__________________ "Faith is the surrender of the mind; it’s the surrender of reason, it’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It’s our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated." - Christopher Hitchens

15th December 2011, 02:57 PM	#6
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,943	Originally Posted by Upchurch Are you referring to this or something else? I think the talk in question was in Georgia but that sounds very close to the remarks I remember so.....maybe it is the same one.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

15th December 2011, 03:46 PM	#7
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,429	Quote here: Quote: "I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9," Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American." Not sure what he means by that, but it does not sound like "secular Americans were actively trying to let Muslim terrorists win and take over the USA."
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

15th December 2011, 02:23 PM	#2
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,426	Are you referring to this or something else?

15th December 2011, 02:40 PM	#5
Denver Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 6,602	The word Atheist, in reality, means different things to different people. Some meanings are well beyond just "not believing in any deity", and I think to some people include anti-God, to anti-Christian, to anti-moral. If you live in an environment where not believing in a the Christian God is the same as denying your Christian morals, which to you pretty much overlaps to normal society and ethics and American values, you can see why someone labeling themselves Atheist would seem to them as equivalent to a radical or an anti-American or even a terrorist. I expect Gingrich (or at least the people to whom he is speaking) understand the term "atheism" in this manner. Given that kind of understanding, it is not unreasonable that they would feel threatened by those who label themselves atheists. So to answer the OP, that is the kind of logic I think is going on. I don't see these people as stupid: just misinformed of the term as defined by atheists themselves. Maybe there needs to be an educational campaign, like the "Hello, my name is X, and I'm a Mormon".

15th December 2011, 03:50 PM	#8
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Only in that sebacious cyst that serves as Newt's brain can a "secular atheist country" be dominated by a fundamentalist religion.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

15th December 2011, 04:09 PM	#9
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,943	Originally Posted by Brainster Quote here: Not sure what he means by that, but it does not sound like "secular Americans were actively trying to let Muslim terrorists win and take over the USA." Well the other possibility is that Newt thinks the Muslim Fundamentalists win and they turn America into a secular atheist culture for some reason. Either way he thinks that one is somehow going to happen with the other. And that doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

15th December 2011, 04:21 PM	#10
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,392	Originally Posted by Travis ....under what strain of logic do you think Atheists want a radical religious sect to win control of America? Oh, I think it's a complete misunderstanding. The athiests who are so quick to stand up for the rights of muslims to build their mosque next to the 911 attack site, who are so quick to pounce on any evidence of christianity in the winter holidays....you know, those athiests? The ones who are so quick to quash every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere, but who have a blind eye to muslims on their little prayer rug five times a day? Wait...."athiest" are just anti_Christian. I got it. Thanks. Oh, and no sympathy from me for your current whining.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

15th December 2011, 04:46 PM	#11
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,429	Originally Posted by Travis Well the other possibility is that Newt thinks the Muslim Fundamentalists win and they turn America into a secular atheist culture for some reason. Either way he thinks that one is somehow going to happen with the other. And that doesn't make a lick of sense to me. I agree there. Actually my reading of his statement is that he was implying that a secular America might lack the will to stand up to radical Islam. Not sure why he believes this.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

15th December 2011, 05:01 PM	#12
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,827	Originally Posted by mhaze Oh, I think it's a complete misunderstanding. The athiests who are so quick to stand up for the rights of muslims to build their mosque next to the 911 attack site, who are so quick to pounce on any evidence of christianity in the winter holidays....you know, those athiests? The ones who are so quick to quash every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere, but who have a blind eye to muslims on their little prayer rug five times a day? Oh... you mean the atheists that exist only in your fevered imagination. Something tells me the rest of us don't have too much to fear from them.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

15th December 2011, 05:03 PM	#13
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,447	Originally Posted by Brainster Quote here: Not sure what he means by that, but it does not sound like "secular Americans were actively trying to let Muslim terrorists win and take over the USA." How in seven hells does a religion "dominate" a "secular atheist country"???
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

15th December 2011, 05:08 PM	#14
Stacko Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 794	Originally Posted by Brainster I agree there. Actually my reading of his statement is that he was implying that a secular America might lack the will to stand up to radical Islam. Not sure why he believes this. I don't know if he believes it but it plays into the current make up of the electorate. It's still ugly out there for non-believers in America or even Canada. The religious rank atheists as trust worthy as rapists according to a recent study. Story. Quote: Many religious people don’t like atheists, and in fact would apparently rate them alongside rapists on levels of trust, suggests a new Canadian study that claims to be one of the first psychological probes into anti-atheist prejudice.
Stacko Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 794

15th December 2011, 06:11 PM	#15
GodMark2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 1,043	Originally Posted by rwguinn How in seven hells does a religion "dominate" a "secular atheist country"??? $\begin{align} Secular Atheist &= Not Christian Like Us \\<br /> Islamic &= Not Christian Like Us \end{align} \\<br /> \therefore Secular Atheist &= Islamic\\ \end{align}$
	__________________ Knowing that we do not know, it does not necessarily follow that we can not know.

15th December 2011, 06:16 PM	#16
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,943	Originally Posted by mhaze Oh, I think it's a complete misunderstanding. The athiests who are so quick to stand up for the rights of muslims to build their mosque next to the 911 attack site, who are so quick to pounce on any evidence of christianity in the winter holidays....you know, those athiests? Oh, you mean people that understand the important of Freedom Of Religion and the need for tolerance. Who may not necessarily be atheists. And I have never encountered an atheist that is against people putting Christianity into Christmas so long as it is not on government land. Originally Posted by mhaze The ones who are so quick to quash every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere, but who have a blind eye to muslims on their little prayer rug five times a day? So........people from some alternate universe? Originally Posted by mhaze Wait...."athiest" are just anti_Christian. An alternate universe where Christianity is the only religion? Quote: I got it. Thanks. Oh, and no sympathy from me for your current whining. Do you think an atheist would be more comfortable being ruled by fundamentalist Muslims?
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

15th December 2011, 06:39 PM	#17
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,392	Originally Posted by Travis Oh, you mean people that understand the important of Freedom Of Religion and the need for tolerance. Who may not necessarily be atheists. And I have never encountered an atheist that is against people putting Christianity into Christmas so long as it is not on government land...... Look, don't just repeat sound-good phrases. Think a bit about what you are doing and saying. Here's an example. I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God But there are many other examples. The above is the oath of office for members of Congress and for federal judges. And it's.....taken.....on.....government.......land... .. Originally Posted by Travis Oh, you mean people that understand the important of Freedom Of Religion and the need for tolerance. Who may not necessarily be atheists. So........people from some alternate universe? An alternate universe where Christianity is the only religion? Do you think an atheist would be more comfortable being ruled by fundamentalist Muslims? Please, don't ask ME questions that YOU need to answer. It's your OP. Not mine. I'm only trying to comment on it. Think it over and consider if it isn't true that (A) in many, many cases, athiests...and liberals, in general...are giving muslims a "free pass" where they clamp down harshly on Christians. A lot of the anti-Christian rhetoric on this forum is simply hate talk. Deal with it. A lot of anti-muslim rhetoric is hate talk, but a fair part of it is not...it's concern over the fact that islam is a system of government as well as a religion.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms Last edited by mhaze; 15th December 2011 at 06:58 PM.

15th December 2011, 07:59 PM	#18
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,872	You mean, atheists that believe that private displays of religion should be protected, and public displays made by the government should not? I think you're misunderstanding why atheists might object to one display but not another on that basis. Or you're being deliberately obtuse. A challenge: can you explain what atheists want for "separation of church and state" in a manner that you believe most atheists would agree is accurate? If you can't manage that I would say you don't really understand. Either that or we're all lying.
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,872	__________________ Last edited by gnome; 15th December 2011 at 08:01 PM.

15th December 2011, 08:10 PM	#19
Regnad Kcin Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: The ol' Same place Posts: 6,215	Originally Posted by mhaze Oh, I think it's a complete misunderstanding. The athiests who are so quick to stand up for the rights of muslims to build their mosque next to the 911 attack site, who are so quick to pounce on any evidence of christianity in the winter holidays....you know, those athiests? The ones who are so quick to quash every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere, but who have a blind eye to muslims on their little prayer rug five times a day? Wait...."athiest" are just anti_Christian. I got it. Oh, you "got it" all right. But just keep floatin' that little boat and blowin' bubbles in the bath.
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

15th December 2011, 08:49 PM	#20
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by mhaze Think it over and consider if it isn't true that (A) in many, many cases, athiests...and liberals, in general...are giving muslims a "free pass" where they clamp down harshly on Christians. Cow cookies. Learn some history. The banning of school prayer as it was practiced up until the 1960s was actually about defending the rights of both those Christians who disapproved of the practice and those of other on no religion who felt put upon by the government intrusion into their spiritual life. To require a Christian child to pray formulaicly in public is to violate Christ's own instructions regarding prayer. (Auth: Matthew 6:5-6.) It is, of course, impossible to effectively b ar a child from praying exactly as Christ commanded. (Auth: Matthew 6:5-6) Muslims, by contrast, are required to pray in company with their fellows. Thus, designating a place where they might gather to pray is the only way to not violate their rights to worship. That they are given a separate place, and forbidden to require that any kufir join them protects the rights of kufir and Muslm alike, as required by the First Amendment. And don't give me any crap about "student organized and lead " prayer being an alterantive. It still distinguishes the practicing Christian from the non-practing or the doctrinally correct Christian. They are praying "to be seen of men" and are WRONG. In an overly-zealous community dominated by fundamentalists, refusal to participate in the "student lead" prayers can and frequently do mark the dissenter for harrassment and harm by his peers. I would, of course, stipulate that any school which would prohibit an individual student's saying grace over his lunch, or making the sign of the cross or invoking God by saying "bism 'Allah" over it is going a step too far and prohibiting a private devotion. Do not worry about the atheists or the Muslims taking over right now. Worry about the Dominionist dirtbags taking over the military academies. Those fools will get us into a holy war if they have a chance. Allen West is more a threat to our religious liberties than is any Sufi imam in NYC.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

15th December 2011, 09:02 PM	#21
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,309	Originally Posted by mhaze Look, don't just repeat sound-good phrases. Think a bit about what you are doing and saying. Here's an example. I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God But there are many other examples. The above is the oath of office for members of Congress and for federal judges. And it's.....taken.....on.....government.......land... .. Please, don't ask ME questions that YOU need to answer. It's your OP. Not mine. I'm only trying to comment on it. Think it over and consider if it isn't true that (A) in many, many cases, athiests...and liberals, in general...are giving muslims a "free pass" where they clamp down harshly on Christians. A lot of the anti-Christian rhetoric on this forum is simply hate talk. Deal with it. A lot of anti-muslim rhetoric is hate talk, but a fair part of it is not...it's concern over the fact that islam is a system of government as well as a religion. So you share Newt 's irrational fears. K.
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,309	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark! Last edited by Redtail; 15th December 2011 at 09:04 PM.

15th December 2011, 10:09 PM	#22
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	Originally Posted by mhaze Oh, I think it's a complete misunderstanding. The athiests who are so quick to stand up for the rights of muslims to build their mosque next to the 911 attack site, who are so quick to pounce on any evidence of christianity in the winter holidays....you know, those athiests? Let me know if you need help understanding the difference between free practice of religion and government support of one religion above others. P.S. What "mosque next to the 911 attack site?" Or do you consider two city blocks "next to?" Quote: The ones who are so quick to quash every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere, but who have a blind eye to muslims on their little prayer rug five times a day? Once again, you confuse the concepts of free practice of religion and government support of one religion above others. Why is that? Originally Posted by mhaze I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God But there are many other examples. The above is the oath of office for members of Congress and for federal judges. And it's.....taken.....on.....government.......land... .. So your point is the phrase should be removed from the oath? Quote: Think it over and consider if it isn't true that (A) in many, many cases, athiests...and liberals, in general...are giving muslims a "free pass" where they clamp down harshly on Christians. You do realize this is a majority "Christian" nation? Feel free to provide examples of your supposed "harsh clamp downs" on the majority? Quote: A lot of the anti-Christian rhetoric on this forum is simply hate talk. Deal with it. A lot of anti-muslim rhetoric is hate talk, but a fair part of it is not...it's concern over the fact that islam is a system of government as well as a religion. Your paranoid fantasy aside, feel free to elaborate how a decentralized religion, without formal clergy, with multiple sects and splinter groups is somehow a "government?"
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660

15th December 2011, 10:36 PM	#23
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,357	Originally Posted by mhaze Oh, I think it's a complete misunderstanding. The athiests who are so quick to stand up for the rights of muslims to build their mosque next to the 911 attack site, who are so quick to pounce on any evidence of christianity in the winter holidays....you know, those athiests? The ones who are so quick to quash every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere, but who have a blind eye to muslims on their little prayer rug five times a day? Originally Posted by mhaze Look, don't just repeat sound-good phrases...
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics. Last edited by UnrepentantSinner; 15th December 2011 at 10:38 PM. Reason: had to look up smilie code

15th December 2011, 10:39 PM	#24
madfoot Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 355	Newt is a smart person. He just happens to lie extremely well.
madfoot Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 355

15th December 2011, 11:00 PM	#25
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,943	Originally Posted by mhaze Look, don't just repeat sound-good phrases. Think a bit about what you are doing and saying. Here's an example. I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God But there are many other examples. The above is the oath of office for members of Congress and for federal judges. And it's.....taken.....on.....government.......land... .. Is there a requirement that they say the last sentence? Originally Posted by mhaze Please, don't ask ME questions that YOU need to answer. It's your OP. Not mine. I'm only trying to comment on it. Think it over and consider if it isn't true that (A) in many, many cases, athiests...and liberals, in general...are giving muslims a "free pass" where they clamp down harshly on Christians. I've never heard of this happening. Atheists deal with whoever happens to be intolerant around them. Every atheist I know wants to fight Al Qaeda. Originally Posted by mhaze A lot of the anti-Christian rhetoric on this forum is simply hate talk. Deal with it. A lot of anti-muslim rhetoric is hate talk, but a fair part of it is not...it's concern over the fact that islam is a system of government as well as a religion. You mean unlike Christianity that didn't itself engage in holy wars and huge purges of it's own?
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

15th December 2011, 11:17 PM	#26
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,357	Originally Posted by Travis Is there a requirement that they say the last sentence? No, there is not. It also isn't part of the earliest versions of the oath of office or enlistment either.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

16th December 2011, 12:50 AM	#27
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,943	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner No, there is not. It also isn't part of the earliest versions of the oath of office or enlistment either. Then I fail to see the relevance.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

16th December 2011, 04:37 AM	#28
Bri Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,310	Originally Posted by Robrob P.S. What "mosque next to the 911 attack site?" Or do you consider two city blocks "next to?" Meanwhile, there are plenty of churches in the area as well. And at least one synagogue. If mhaze is suggesting that allowing a mosque in the area is somehow discriminatory against Christianity, I'd like to know how. Quote: Your paranoid fantasy aside, feel free to elaborate how a decentralized religion, without formal clergy, with multiple sects and splinter groups is somehow a "government?" I'm guessing he's referring to sharia law? Of course, other religions -- Judaism is one example -- have their own laws as well, and like sharia law there is generally no consensus as to how it is practiced. So I'm curious as to what non-hate-talk anti-muslim rhetoric he's referring to and what the concern is exactly. -Bri
Bri Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,310

16th December 2011, 05:56 AM	#29
Hawk one Emperor of the Internet Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Right below The Hat. Posts: 12,845	Originally Posted by Bri Meanwhile, there are plenty of churches in the area as well. And at least one synagogue. If mhaze is suggesting that allowing a mosque in the area is somehow discriminatory against Christianity, I'd like to know how. Not to mention that it wasn't really a planned mosque as much as it was a planned community center with some praying area in it.
	__________________ Boynott everything! Roxane - My evil feeds on your hatred. I am like a big evil thing that feasts on hatred and probably also fear. Nom nom. Roxane is a ninja star without me.

16th December 2011, 06:37 AM	#30
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,392	Originally Posted by Travis Is there a requirement that they say the last sentence?..... The fact that any oath may be affirmed, instead of sworn to, and that alternate books can be used instead of the bible, does not negate in one bit my point. You don't want references to god in public places. But our very oaths of public office are only affirmed by individual choice, not the mandated requirements by atheists. Individual choice is not a factor for the same athiests regarding various behaviors they would force on the public, is it? Originally Posted by Travis ....I've never heard of this happening. Atheists deal with whoever happens to be intolerant around them. Every atheist I know wants to fight Al Qaeda.... I don't particularly care about who you know, but I do know one thing. Fundamentalist Muslims, by their basic belief set, want to kill you, the athiest. Fundamentalist Christians, or any other type of Christian, do not want to kill you. Originally Posted by Travis ....You mean unlike Christianity that didn't itself engage in holy wars and huge purges of it's own? see above...
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

16th December 2011, 07:06 AM	#31
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by mhaze I don't particularly care about who you know, but I do know one thing. Fundamentalist Muslims, by their basic belief set, want to kill you, the athiest. Fundamentalist Christians, or any other type of Christian, do not want to kill you. Bull feathers. Supposed "Christians" have set an awful lot of bombs in the last thirty years.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

16th December 2011, 07:15 AM	#32
Almo Masterblazer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,407	Originally Posted by leftysergeant Cow cookies. Learn some history. The banning of school prayer as it was practiced up until the 1960s was actually about defending the rights of both those Christians who disapproved of the practice and those of other on no religion who felt put upon by the government intrusion into their spiritual life... Lefty nailed that one. Solid post, dude.
	__________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia

16th December 2011, 07:23 AM	#33
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,392	Originally Posted by leftysergeant Bull feathers. Supposed "Christians" have set an awful lot of bombs in the last thirty years. Irrelevant. Christians do not have a mandate to kill atheists. Muslims do. What do you need, a Koran cite? Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89 If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91 Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you. 9:123 This isn't complicated. "People of the book" include Christians and Jews. "Disbelievers" are, duhhh, Athiests.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms Last edited by mhaze; 16th December 2011 at 07:27 AM.

16th December 2011, 07:31 AM	#34
Random Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,463	It’s all a matter of perception. Christians in the US have received preferential treatment for so long that anything that challenges that entitlement seems like an attack. The system has been crooked for so long it looks straight to them. The pledge of allegiance debate is a perfect example. Christians up in arms about banning the pledge from schools simply because it mentions God, while non-Christians scratch their heads and wonder why “under God” was tacked on in the first place.
	__________________ ...So, the next time you find yourself desperately Googling for some factual example that proves your argument is right, and failing to find even one, stop. See if you can put the brakes on and actually say, out loud, "Wait a second. If the things I'm saying in order to bolster my argument are consistently wrong, then maybe my argument is also wrong." -Cracked

16th December 2011, 07:33 AM	#35
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,872	@mhaze -- There are a lot of things that Christians are supposed to do in the bible that most Christians don't. Are you unwilling to suppose that the same is true of Muslims?
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,872	__________________