JiangxiDad on November 28, 2007 at 10:44 AM

I thought, haven’t looked it up, but the Christians were more like 24% of the Palestinian population, the majority living in Israel.
But either way, it shows dramatically the difference between Christianity and the “other”.

How about all of them. Christ was killed for political reasons.
Gee, and I always thought Christ was a religious leader…I think you are mixing present day politics with the historical record of religion.
They were more religious then political…calling himself “ego eimi” was a religious insult, against religious doctrine, not political.
But you have your opinion, historians have there’s; Christ and his followers were killed for religious reason’s.

Islam, unlike other formal religious faiths, is an integral way of life. The Muslim (“One who submits”) can allow no separation between his life and his religion, his politics and his faith.

Buy Danish on November 28, 2007 at 1:36 AM

I don’t mean to pick here, but I don’t see how that is different than Christianity. I’m an American and very proud to be so, but I will not follow a law that goes against my faith.

In fact, the New Testament is full of stories about Christians who were sentenced to death for precisely that reason.

Esthier on November 28, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Esthier, I think we’re talking about two entirely different things here. You seem to be talking about having the courage of one’s convictions and faith in the face of tyranny and oppression – even to the point of dying for one’s beliefs.

That is not the same thing as following a religion/ideology that are inextricably bound with every single aspect of one’s life, including having a unique set of laws (Sharia) which, if followed in a country that is not an Islamic State, could supersede a nation’s laws or Constitution – as demonstrated with this example.

This sort of radical determination to conquer and destroy our culture from within (from the “East is East” article) is also not comparable with the goals of Christianity:

In the United Arab Emirates, there is a popular religious channel called Al-Majd TV, somewhat less well known in the west than al-Jazeera. Speaking on it recently was Saudi Professor Nasser bin Suleiman al Omar who offered his listeners the following: “Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient.”

That is far beyond merely electing politicians whose actions and proposals are compatible with our religious beliefs: that is a call to war (albeit to be accomplished by overwhelming the population).

Granted, this may be viewed as an extreme example, but certainly modern Christians are not called upon to “die” for the “cause” of conquering other nations in order to achieve Christian supremacy. Our nation can and does take offensive action as an act of self-defense, but that is not the same as a nation/church conquering a non-aggressor nation in order to forcefully usurp one religion and willfully and purposefully destroy a nation and it’s existing culture in the process.

Why pander in private, though? The point of pandering is to get votes.

Allahpundit on November 27, 2007 at 8:46 PM

At this point candidates may stuck on pander.

I think since Mitt is gaining ground there’s more interest in tripping him up or taking advantage of the slightest off statement.

Question – Would you appoint a Muslim to your cabinet?

Answer – I would consider it only if I could somehow be sure that his/her true loyalty lies with his/her country first and his/her religion second.

I think it would be very interesting to see the reaction to that exchange from Dhimmies and Muslims. Very interesting.

In Palestine’s, the killings and bombings are never done by the Christian Palestinians (a large segment of their people). An area festered in hate, and the Christians stand above it.

Roughly 6-7% of worldwide Palestinians are Christians. Maybe 2% live in Palestine and Israel. A peaceful people, they have been hounded by the Muslim majority. Ditto in Lebanon, and in Iraq. Christians stand above it, but have fled the area in droves for the christian west and australia.

Could you point to the Christians that was sentenced to death for political reasons in the Bible?

How about all of them. Christ was killed for political reasons.

Peter was told repeatedly to stop talking about Christ or risk execution. He chose execution.

In China, it’s illegal to be a Christian, and because of that, ministers memorize their Bibles in case their’s are confiscated.

Yes, Jesus said, “render unto Caesar.” There’s even a verse that says, “obey the laws of the land.”

Even still, the early Christians were breaking the law by continuing to preach about a man the state had executed out of fear that the government would be subverted by that man. The only reason Paul was initially saved is because he was a Roman citizen by birth and was able to appeal his imprisonment on those grounds.

I don’t mean to pick here, but I don’t see how that is different than Christianity. I’m an American and very proud to be so, but I will not follow a law that goes against my faith.

In fact, the New Testament is full of stories about Christians who were sentenced to death for precisely that reason.

Esthier on November 28, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Could you point to the Christians that was sentenced to death for political reasons in the Bible?
The tenants of the Christian faith is explicit (by Christ’s edict), we support the governing body. Remember the render unto Caesar line?
Also, the Christians do not have Iman’s or living prophets to tell us what to do. We have the Bible, and that is the check and balances.
Maybe the best example in the world of Christian beliefs is in Palestine. In Palestine’s, the killings and bombings are never done by the Christian Palestinians (a large segment of their people). An area festered in hate, and the Christians stand above it.

1)…things haven’t changed too much. When your religion begins by preying on caravans and continues it to preying on shipping – there a bit of a pattern.

2)…I don’t think Jefferson envisioned the our shores ever facing the threat of sharia law – which is the unfortunate stated goal of some our fellow citizens.

Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 12:18 AM

1) Yes, they continue today with anything that passes near them. Case in point, the ship hijackings near Somalia.

2) Thanks to our State Department’s preferential treatment of those from the Middle East. ( I observed several obviously Middle Eastern men and women, a “family” of sorts… one man, three women around his age, all with US passports, getting boarding passes in Jordan. One of the women had not even signed her passport, it was so new.

{It took me nearly two years to get my Thai wife into the USA, and several thousand dollars in fees.})

[Irma] Aguirre added that what Romney said next surprised her. “He said something to the effect of, ‘They’re radicals. There’s no talking to them. There’s no negotiating with them.’

Is it at all possible that Mitt is actually talking about the jihadis here?

If the question posed was the first one, the one that specifically mentions the jihadi threat, isn’t it possible that Mitt said something to the effect of, “No, because appointing a Muslim wouldn’t appease those radicals.”

I mean the only reason to appoint someone who understands the jihadis is if you want to negotiate with them. Mitt has never claimed that he would ever negotiate with terrorists.

And really, the sentence, if talking about all Muslims in general, seems really odd. Calling them radicals and saying you can’t talk to them can make sense if he’s a bigot, but why would he need to negotiate with members of his own cabinet?

Am I the only one who finds that quote odd?

This was my complaint with the last quote. It didn’t seem like a decent response to the question asked. It just went too far off topic for me to conclude Mitt was answering the same question that we’re led to believe he was asked.

Islam, unlike other formal religious faiths, is an integral way of life. The Muslim (“One who submits”) can allow no separation between his life and his religion, his politics and his faith.

Buy Danish on November 28, 2007 at 1:36 AM

I don’t mean to pick here, but I don’t see how that is different than Christianity. I’m an American and very proud to be so, but I will not follow a law that goes against my faith.

In fact, the New Testament is full of stories about Christians who were sentenced to death for precisely that reason.

Keith Ellison was sworn in on a Koran that belonged to him. I’d point out that Jefferson also owned slaves and ran the country at a time when there were a couple less Muslim-Americans.

CAIR, the indicted co-conspirator can stuff that in their turban and smoke it.

BobJones-77 on November 27, 2007 at 9:00 PM
There are millions of American Muslims. CAIR has a membership of 1,700.

amerpundit on November 27, 2007 at 9:12 PM

1) Thomas Jefferson obtained his copy of the koran to understand more about his enemy. He wanted to find out why the Barbary pirates thought they had a right to demand tribute for passge in an open sea.

2)And where do we see the “millions of muslims in the USA” minus the 1,700 denouncing terrorists?

I would make my cabinet swear on a stack of tax forms instead of a religious portfolio…

SouthernGent on November 27, 2007 at 8:49 PM

That sounds like hillaryspeak.

You know, as in, “You don’t do as I say, and expect the IRS to come calling.”

Iraq, no you can’t.

It will probably take an act of God.

MB4 on November 27, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Not really, just some dedicated people. Time and effort. And more than a few bucks.

Been there, done that.

I will say this though, he has shown that he isn’t that quick on his feet with unexpected questions; the question about his sons’ service for ex. Maybe this is another case of that, and could be a case of hearing a keyword in a question and saying no categorically. Still, he’s a polished candidate, so it’s kind of hard to figure.

Spirit of 1776 on November 27, 2007 at 8:32 PM

Unless an event is as unexpected as 9/11, most possible events are pretty much pre-thought out and an appropriate response decided. Sometimes we get blind-sided, and find our response not exactly the best one to the question.

No, I am not exactly a Mitt fan. But I do think he did a decent job in responding to someone who had an axe to grind.

I’m willing to bet money that if Bush appointed a Christian for the sole purpose to reach out to Christians we would hear no end to first amendment volitions but everyone is cool to appointing Muslims because Muslims are like a race so there is no first amendment problems.

Yeah, remember the whole faith-based initiatives uproar. Got bombarded with the editorializing about that in the local papers about how the world was ending.

But think there is a difference about appointing a Muslim to satisty a minority group and appointing a Christian to spread the Gospel. I don’t like either btw.

Mitt told a second audience he probably wouldn’t have Muslims in his cabinet

…and the problem is?
I am not fan of Mitt’s. I mean his handling of the Big Dig by giving Bechtel (a major campaign supporter for decades) a pass, and even a bonus for that fiasco, should have eliminated him from any race.
Be that as it may, the president should have the sole discretion to select anyone, for any reason to help run this country. I want the best, and the most compatible cabinet at the head of this country.
That is why we go through this selection process. To weed out candidates who give favors to their campaign contributors. To weed out candidates who put their best interest ahead of the country…so we don’t have to worry that they will make coo-koo nominations.

Also, I don’t take AP as one to tolerate bigotry of any sort, no matter who it comes from. I am sure that even if it was buddy, preferred candidate, and fellow New Yawker Rudy involved here, that he would be raising the same questions. I’m not saying that Mitt is a bigot btw. From what I’ve read, I don’t think so, necessarily. Consider the statement: “would you consider it prudent to put a Muslim in your cabinet?’ He said, ‘Most likely not.’” In my mind, that is not a racist statement. He is saying that he disagrees that you NEED to have a Muslim in the Cabinet, that it is NECESSARILY a wise thing to do b/c we are involved in a war of terror against radical Islam. I think the people crying foul here are lacking in the criticial thinking dept or something.

I’m willing to bet money that if Bush appointed a Christian for the sole purpose to reach out to Christians we would hear no end to first amendment volitions but everyone is cool to appointing Muslims because Muslims are like a race so there is no first amendment problems.

The one thing I can say about all the responses in this thread is that I’m shocked at how much political correctness has been instilled into the everyday lives of Americans. I think the cause is lost and Western culture and civilization is dying out. Long live the collective!

Or have I misunderstood and you’re all gung ho for a categorical ban on Muslim cabinet members, Zal Khalilzad and people like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser included?

Allahpundit on November 27, 2007 at 8:32 PM

Yes, Allah, a good number of your readers are for a categorical ban on Muslim cabinet members. I doubt you’ve misunderstood anything as you’ve surely been reading some of the comments on the recent threads, and they’ve become more and more vitriolic and ridiculously close-minded.

progressoverpeace on November 28, 2007 at 1:08 AM

What he said!

Oh… that’s right…

(Even though I find their angel Moroni risible, it doesn’t taint their existence with intolerance as some unnamed religion’s tenets tend to.)

I’d personally prefer Muslims in the liquor cabinet.

Less trouble.

So I gathered:) I think it is more related to piracy than Islam, but as you implied – religiously inspired, so if no Islam, no piracy perhaps.

Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 1:19 AM

Okay, now I get your point. The Hindu bit threw me off, as that was another religion.

I still don’t think you can separate the Islam out from the piracy. This quote from a very good article I found today about the clash of our civilizations that says it well:

Islam, unlike other formal religious faiths, is an integral way of life. The Muslim (“One who submits”) can allow no separation between his life and his religion, his politics and his faith.

Goodnight!