Re that Guardian article, see:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017542.php

http://www.guardian.co.uk/egypt/story/0,,2135869,00.html

That would be Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

As for the Jihad, this too will pass; Hopefully sooner rather than later. If you think about it, it really is a sad testiment to their culture. Surely they will wize up before too long.

You may be thinking of Nonie Darwish, who is an ex-Muslim.

Not in the news…..on the talk shows)

(legislators won’t touch this issue with a ten foot pole)

Wake up America. Islam is not “fundamentally good’ for America or Americans. Learn about it.

Well stated Hening

In my opinion the bottom line is this: No one cares if Muslims practice their religion as long as they renounce those aspects of Islam that are not compatable with the nations they live in. Tolerance of others, equal treatment for all under the law of the country they immigrate to, renounce conquest of the infidel and domination of others by Islam, support efforts to confront militant Islam, and they are welcome.

In my opinion this will not happen however. Islam is flawed from it’s core by doctrine that mandates conquest of the infidel, domination of Islam above all others, use of deceipt and deceiption in dealings with the infidel, subservience of women and others, to name but a few objectionable practices. Their core doctrine is not going to change, and they are going to perpetually be the enemy because of it.

When, When, When will those in the United States and western countries wake up to this fact and see Muslims for what they really are?

Christians can swear on nothing if they so choose.

Here’s the thing, most courts now in NC just say ‘raise your right hand’. There is no Bible even for Christians. The only purpose for this lawsuit was to essentially take the Bible out of the courtroom completely. People in NC like their Bible so the thought of taking the Bible out of the courtroom probably WOULD HAVE caused riots. You should have heard the town meetings when they decided not to pray to ‘Jesus’.

The only thing the courts were considering was taking the Bible out of the courtroom. Allowing the Koran was the only way for them to be able to keep the Bible in the courtroom under this particular lawsuit. WHY is it necessary? My point is that it isn’t less discriminatory now that they allow someone to use a Koran. It is only less discriminatory for Muslims.

MOST people use nothing. Raise your right hand ‘do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God’. That’s how it goes. No Bible. The Bible hasn’t actually been used regularly for about 20 years when the Jewish community (good prominent people in this community) sued about using the Christian Bible – which is why they put in the ‘nothing’ clause.

The Jews were OK with nothing, the Hindus are OK with nothing, the Christians are OK with nothing, the Buddhists are OK with nothing. The only ones who FORCED their religion on the courts were the Muslims. Please understand that in context.

They say what will lull the infidels suckers back to a state where they can be over-run and killed more easily.

The only poll I want to here is:

How soon will Muslims all return to Mecca and stay?

Even Christians can swear in on nothing

That is my point. Christians can swear on nothing if they so choose. NonChristians who happen to not revere the Bible have will have no choice in the matter. Under your plan, they HAVE to swear on nothing.

I have never understood swearing on *anything* be it ceremonially, as in assigning somebody to a government post, or legally, as in swearing someone in before testfiying before a court. Does the swearing in on a Bible actually convict a court defendant who would otherwise consider lying? Of course not. I prefer to follow the advice of Jesus in this case. Do not swear or take an oath on anything, be honest and let your yes be yes, and no be no (Matt 5:33-37). Or have Bible believers forgotten the Bible that they swear on?

The only point of continuing this ceremony is, as you say…

The use of the Bible as a choice for swearing in was not a ‘religious’ issue, rather a ‘historical’ one

…tradition.

If you consider this tradition so meaningful, then I propose a compromise. Instead of swearing on the Bible, the Quran, or any other holy book, why not swear on a copy of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights? That sounds like a good idea to me. Being an American is something that every American should be able to identify with, unlike the diverse opinions, religions and holy books on who God may or may not be.

If it is nothing for non-Christians, it should be nothing for everybody.

It IS nothing for everybody. Even Christians can swear in on nothing. I guess now we’ll have to have animal sacrifices for some religious oath of some African immigrant since we allow the Bible. Now it is just the Bible and the Koran or nothing. . . how would that be ‘less’ discriminatory? It is only less discriminatory for Muslims.

Here again, the argument was not put forth, they just rolled over.

BUT our city councils and local legislations are being sued one by one in NC to take any reference to a specific god (read ‘Jesus’) out of the opening prayer for the sessions. I actually believe this is valid because I don’t want someone praying to Allah before deciding what laws I have to live under. However, once again AMERICAN culture takes a back seat out of offending someone. There was a lot of public outcry, but if you can pray to Jesus, you must allow prayer to any other entity. . . therefore I approve of this measure as unpopular as it is.

Allowing the oath on nothing or the Bible is not discriminatory. Everyone can take the oath on nothing, therefore you are equal under the law. The Bible was used HISTORICALLY (read ‘culture’) primarily because Bibles were readily available in every courthouse – it wasn’t because of discrimination until some lawyer decided he could make some money off of it. Now the Koran becomes available not out of historical context, but political correctness and a lack of understanding of what ‘freedom’ means.

Memo to that 40%: you might want to check this out