(02-09-2021 09:53 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I don't think it matters one jot what they use for swearing in. Same goes for a number of non Muslim politicians. It's just an artefact for some.

A number of individuals are just plain amoral.

Concerns about religion and its impact on governing aren't entirely misplaced. That's why I believe in separation of church and state. So how should we view political Islam?

The same way we view political Christianity, IMO.

I don't view requesting to be sworn in on the Bible or the Quran as an example of political religion. I also don't find any of your initial comments to be related to the implementation of a religiously-based political system:

Quote:Glad to know that you are an expert on the Quran (as well as US Constitutional, Civil, and Business law).

Various parts of the Quran that have been explained to me I find quite troubling: subjugation of other religions; and taqiyya to name just two of many.

As for going back to the Middle East didn't Rashida Tlaib say something along the lines of, "I never felt more like a Palestinian" when she was sworn in to Congress wearing a thobe (traditional Palestinian dress).

So much for America as the melting pot.

But it sounds like there may be other aspects to Omar (or Talib, since she has been brought into the conversation) that indicate they're advocating for a religiously-based laws. Can you share?

(02-09-2021 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 08:59 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 07:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I am troubled by those too (I'm troubled by plenty of aspects of many religions). I'm not sure why your concerns are somehow relevant to the matter at hand though. Are your concerns a reason that she should not be allowed to be sworn in using the Quran? Should she have been forced to use the Bible for her swearing in?


From the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46751362):


Seems exactly like a melting pot IMO.

I can't find your "I've never felt more like a Palestinian" quote anywhere. Can you link it?

The quote appears to be in reference to how she is asked to comment/condemn any action (implied that they are related to Palestine). That being requested to do that all the time makes her feel more Palestinian than she does when she is in Palestine.

https://grabien.com/story.php?id=231555

Thanks. Makes sense. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with her dress.

When googling that, I found an article from The Blaze (IIRC) that clearly ignored the words right before the quote to make the statement look much more controversial.

Kind of like how the progressive side ignored one guy clearly stating he condemned the neo-nazis and white supremacists, in fact 'condemned totally'.

Amazing how that happens. Fun, fun, fun.

Very substantive point.

(02-08-2021 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2021 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2021 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Off the top of my head, we can start with Omar, who has dealt with talking heads and now Congresswomen attacking her for being Muslim - saying things like she supports Sharia law.

I know of nobody who has attacked Omar for being Muslim.

LOLOLOL

Take a guess who said this:

“We’re going to explain about how you can’t swear in on the Quran. We’re going to have the Bible and ask them if they would swear in on the Bible … I think that’s important.”

"I really want to go talk to these ladies and ask them what they are thinking, and why they are serving in our American government. They really should go back to the Middle East.”

So how are they different from the other Muslims who are not attacked for being Muslim?

Quote:In an interview with the Detroit Free Press, Ms Tlaib, 42, said she would be using the Koran owned by America's third president, but she later told the paper that she had instead decided to use a family Koran.

Maybe she just decided that would be giving too much honor to a slave-owning racist and rapist whose statues should be pulled down and who does not deserve to have a school named for him.

Odd that this is advanced as proof of her intentions.

I remember when the world was in an uproar over a Catholic being elected to POTUS.

My personal belief is that office holders should be sworn in on a copy of the Constitution, not a religious artifact of their choosing.

(02-09-2021 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2021 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2021 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2021 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Off the top of my head, we can start with Omar, who has dealt with talking heads and now Congresswomen attacking her for being Muslim - saying things like she supports Sharia law.

I know of nobody who has attacked Omar for being Muslim.

LOLOLOL

Take a guess who said this:

“We’re going to explain about how you can’t swear in on the Quran. We’re going to have the Bible and ask them if they would swear in on the Bible … I think that’s important.”

"I really want to go talk to these ladies and ask them what they are thinking, and why they are serving in our American government. They really should go back to the Middle East.”

So how are they different from the other Muslims who are not attacked for being Muslim?

Huh?

I don't actually understand the question, and I don't see how "other Muslims" are relevant to a conversation about Omar being attacked for her views (i.e. her being Muslim).

You said you know of no one who has attacked Omar for being Muslim.

(02-09-2021 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Quote:In an interview with the Detroit Free Press, Ms Tlaib, 42, said she would be using the Koran owned by America's third president, but she later told the paper that she had instead decided to use a family Koran.

Maybe she just decided that would be giving too much honor to a slave-owning racist and rapist whose statues should be pulled down and who does not deserve to have a school named for him.

Odd that this is advanced as proof of her intentions.

Don't get the point of this - the rest of the post is more interesting.

Quote:I remember when the world was in an uproar over a Catholic being elected to POTUS.

To me, it's mind boggling. People thought Kennedy was going to be controlled by the Pope!

We've come far enough that no one has even batted an eye at Biden's faith - but we clearly have a ways to go.

Quote:My personal belief is that office holders should be sworn in on a copy of the Constitution, not a religious artifact of their choosing.

Absolutely zero issue with this proposal. A fair and even treatment to all elected officials, and it's based off of using our governing document, which they have sworn to uphold.

(02-09-2021 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2021 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2021 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2021 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Off the top of my head, we can start with Omar, who has dealt with talking heads and now Congresswomen attacking her for being Muslim - saying things like she supports Sharia law.

I know of nobody who has attacked Omar for being Muslim.

LOLOLOL

Take a guess who said this:

“We’re going to explain about how you can’t swear in on the Quran. We’re going to have the Bible and ask them if they would swear in on the Bible … I think that’s important.”

"I really want to go talk to these ladies and ask them what they are thinking, and why they are serving in our American government. They really should go back to the Middle East.”

So how are they different from the other Muslims who are not attacked for being Muslim?

Huh?

I don't actually understand the question, and I don't see how "other Muslims" are relevant to a conversation about Omar being attacked for her views (i.e. her being Muslim).

You said you know of no one who has attacked Omar for being Muslim.

And I still don't. If the only reason she was attacked was for being Muslim, you would think that the other Muslims in Congress and other venues of public life would have been similarly attacked.

(02-09-2021 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 09:53 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I don't think it matters one jot what they use for swearing in. Same goes for a number of non Muslim politicians. It's just an artefact for some.

A number of individuals are just plain amoral.

Concerns about religion and its impact on governing aren't entirely misplaced. That's why I believe in separation of church and state. So how should we view political Islam?

The same way we view political Christianity, IMO.

I don't view requesting to be sworn in on the Bible or the Quran as an example of political religion. I also don't find any of your initial comments to be related to the implementation of a religiously-based political system:

Quote:Glad to know that you are an expert on the Quran (as well as US Constitutional, Civil, and Business law).

Various parts of the Quran that have been explained to me I find quite troubling: subjugation of other religions; and taqiyya to name just two of many.

As for going back to the Middle East didn't Rashida Tlaib say something along the lines of, "I never felt more like a Palestinian" when she was sworn in to Congress wearing a thobe (traditional Palestinian dress).

So much for America as the melting pot.

But it sounds like there may be other aspects to Omar (or Talib, since she has been brought into the conversation) that indicate they're advocating for a religiously-based laws. Can you share?

I've never heard of political Christianity? Didn't that Jesus bloke say something like "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". I think you'd be hard pressed to find a similar quote from Mohammed.

"But it sounds like..." I don't think I said that. If that's what you interpreted from what I said then either I misspoke or you misinterpreted what I said. I am concerned about political Islam. Just look at the recent changes in a previously somewhat secular Turkey.

(I'll go back and see exactly what I said.) (Nope I don't think I suggested "they're advocating for a religiously-based laws".)

(02-09-2021 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We've come far enough that no one has even batted an eye at Biden's faith - but we clearly have a ways to go.

I serious doubt any practicing Catholic would even suggest Biden is in communion with the Catholic faith. As a Catholic 'feaster' I sure wouldn't.

Going to Mass has very little with being a 'good' Catholic and more about being a 'visible' Catholic. (Biden has been denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist at least once. )

(02-09-2021 11:29 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We've come far enough that no one has even batted an eye at Biden's faith - but we clearly have a ways to go.

I serious doubt any practicing Catholic would even suggest Biden is in communion with the Catholic faith. As a Catholic 'feaster' I sure wouldn't.

Going to Mass has very little with being a 'good' Catholic and more about being a 'visible' Catholic. (Biden has been denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist at least once. )

What constitutes a "good" versus "bad" Catholic is under massive debate even at the highest levels of the Vatican.

Why was Biden denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? What kinds of missteps will lead to this censure? Are you allowed the sacrament if you are divorced? How about if you're gay?

(02-09-2021 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2021 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2021 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I know of nobody who has attacked Omar for being Muslim.

LOLOLOL

Take a guess who said this:

“We’re going to explain about how you can’t swear in on the Quran. We’re going to have the Bible and ask them if they would swear in on the Bible … I think that’s important.”

"I really want to go talk to these ladies and ask them what they are thinking, and why they are serving in our American government. They really should go back to the Middle East.”

So how are they different from the other Muslims who are not attacked for being Muslim?

Huh?

I don't actually understand the question, and I don't see how "other Muslims" are relevant to a conversation about Omar being attacked for her views (i.e. her being Muslim).

You said you know of no one who has attacked Omar for being Muslim.

And I still don't. If the only reason she was attacked was for being Muslim, you would think that the other Muslims in Congress and other venues of public life would have been similarly attacked.

First, actions don't have to occur to everyone of a certain group for them to be relevant. So it's a false assumption that if other Muslims in Congress weren't being attacked for being Muslim, that Omar also must not be.

Second, the other Muslims in Congress? You mean Rashida Tlaib? The only other two Muslims in Congress are Keith Ellison and Andre Carson - not idea if they've ever or never been criticized over their faith. Sounds like you may follow their careers closely enough to say that?

(02-09-2021 11:22 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 09:53 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I don't think it matters one jot what they use for swearing in. Same goes for a number of non Muslim politicians. It's just an artefact for some.

A number of individuals are just plain amoral.

Concerns about religion and its impact on governing aren't entirely misplaced. That's why I believe in separation of church and state. So how should we view political Islam?

The same way we view political Christianity, IMO.

I don't view requesting to be sworn in on the Bible or the Quran as an example of political religion. I also don't find any of your initial comments to be related to the implementation of a religiously-based political system:

Quote:Glad to know that you are an expert on the Quran (as well as US Constitutional, Civil, and Business law).

Various parts of the Quran that have been explained to me I find quite troubling: subjugation of other religions; and taqiyya to name just two of many.

As for going back to the Middle East didn't Rashida Tlaib say something along the lines of, "I never felt more like a Palestinian" when she was sworn in to Congress wearing a thobe (traditional Palestinian dress).

So much for America as the melting pot.

But it sounds like there may be other aspects to Omar (or Talib, since she has been brought into the conversation) that indicate they're advocating for a religiously-based laws. Can you share?

I've never heard of political Christianity? Didn't that Jesus bloke say something like "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". I think you'd be hard pressed to find a similar quote from Mohammed.

"But it sounds like..." I don't think I said that. If that's what you interpreted from what I said then either I misspoke or you misinterpreted what I said. I am concerned about political Islam. Just look at the recent changes in a previously somewhat secular Turkey.

(I'll go back and see exactly what I said.) (Nope I don't think I suggested "they're advocating for a religiously-based laws".)

I don't understand why your concern about political Islam is relevant to the conversation, unless there is a concern that Omar/Tlaib are practicing it. Hence my comment. Or is your discussion about the concern of political Islam just a tangentially related discussion?

(02-09-2021 11:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:29 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We've come far enough that no one has even batted an eye at Biden's faith - but we clearly have a ways to go.

I serious doubt any practicing Catholic would even suggest Biden is in communion with the Catholic faith. As a Catholic 'feaster' I sure wouldn't.

Going to Mass has very little with being a 'good' Catholic and more about being a 'visible' Catholic. (Biden has been denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist at least once. )

What constitutes a "good" versus "bad" Catholic is under massive debate even at the highest levels of the Vatican.

Why was Biden denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? What kinds of missteps will lead to this censure? Are you allowed the sacrament if you are divorced? How about if you're gay?

Biden's position on abortion removes him from the Communion rail. (It's those darn commandments Moses gave us.)

Last I heard divorce, if you initiate it, removes you as well. If you didn't and don't defile your marriage bed, you're probably OK. My neighbor was a 'good' Catholic in my opinion, but never took Communion because he divorced his first wife.

Gays are not allowed Communion.

I don't there there's that much of a debate about what constitutes a 'good' Catholic and a 'bad' Catholic. But nice try.

(Time to cook supper for the kids and my ex. Adios.)

(02-09-2021 11:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:22 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 09:53 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I don't think it matters one jot what they use for swearing in. Same goes for a number of non Muslim politicians. It's just an artefact for some.

A number of individuals are just plain amoral.

Concerns about religion and its impact on governing aren't entirely misplaced. That's why I believe in separation of church and state. So how should we view political Islam?

The same way we view political Christianity, IMO.

I don't view requesting to be sworn in on the Bible or the Quran as an example of political religion. I also don't find any of your initial comments to be related to the implementation of a religiously-based political system:

Quote:Glad to know that you are an expert on the Quran (as well as US Constitutional, Civil, and Business law).

Various parts of the Quran that have been explained to me I find quite troubling: subjugation of other religions; and taqiyya to name just two of many.

As for going back to the Middle East didn't Rashida Tlaib say something along the lines of, "I never felt more like a Palestinian" when she was sworn in to Congress wearing a thobe (traditional Palestinian dress).

So much for America as the melting pot.

But it sounds like there may be other aspects to Omar (or Talib, since she has been brought into the conversation) that indicate they're advocating for a religiously-based laws. Can you share?

I've never heard of political Christianity? Didn't that Jesus bloke say something like "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". I think you'd be hard pressed to find a similar quote from Mohammed.

"But it sounds like..." I don't think I said that. If that's what you interpreted from what I said then either I misspoke or you misinterpreted what I said. I am concerned about political Islam. Just look at the recent changes in a previously somewhat secular Turkey.

(I'll go back and see exactly what I said.) (Nope I don't think I suggested "they're advocating for a religiously-based laws".)

I don't understand why your concern about political Islam is relevant to the conversation, unless there is a concern that Omar/Tlaib are practicing it. Hence my comment. Or is your discussion about the concern of political Islam just a tangentially related discussion?

I'd say it's tangential except for the anti-Semitic behaviour of Omar & Tlaib.

(02-09-2021 12:08 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:22 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 09:53 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I don't think it matters one jot what they use for swearing in. Same goes for a number of non Muslim politicians. It's just an artefact for some.

A number of individuals are just plain amoral.

Concerns about religion and its impact on governing aren't entirely misplaced. That's why I believe in separation of church and state. So how should we view political Islam?

The same way we view political Christianity, IMO.

I don't view requesting to be sworn in on the Bible or the Quran as an example of political religion. I also don't find any of your initial comments to be related to the implementation of a religiously-based political system:

Quote:Glad to know that you are an expert on the Quran (as well as US Constitutional, Civil, and Business law).

Various parts of the Quran that have been explained to me I find quite troubling: subjugation of other religions; and taqiyya to name just two of many.

As for going back to the Middle East didn't Rashida Tlaib say something along the lines of, "I never felt more like a Palestinian" when she was sworn in to Congress wearing a thobe (traditional Palestinian dress).

So much for America as the melting pot.

But it sounds like there may be other aspects to Omar (or Talib, since she has been brought into the conversation) that indicate they're advocating for a religiously-based laws. Can you share?

I've never heard of political Christianity? Didn't that Jesus bloke say something like "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". I think you'd be hard pressed to find a similar quote from Mohammed.

"But it sounds like..." I don't think I said that. If that's what you interpreted from what I said then either I misspoke or you misinterpreted what I said. I am concerned about political Islam. Just look at the recent changes in a previously somewhat secular Turkey.

(I'll go back and see exactly what I said.) (Nope I don't think I suggested "they're advocating for a religiously-based laws".)

I don't understand why your concern about political Islam is relevant to the conversation, unless there is a concern that Omar/Tlaib are practicing it. Hence my comment. Or is your discussion about the concern of political Islam just a tangentially related discussion?

I'd say it's tangential except for the anti-Semitic behaviour of Omar & Tlaib.

Oh heck, which one is it? Just a second ago you said you either misspoke or I misinterpreted you.

It sounds like there may be other aspects to Omar (or Tlaib, since she has been brought into the conversation) that indicate they're advocating for a religiously-based laws. Can you share?

Or do you you not find that there are other aspects of these two that indicate they're advocating for religiously-based laws?

(02-09-2021 12:07 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:29 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We've come far enough that no one has even batted an eye at Biden's faith - but we clearly have a ways to go.

I serious doubt any practicing Catholic would even suggest Biden is in communion with the Catholic faith. As a Catholic 'feaster' I sure wouldn't.

Going to Mass has very little with being a 'good' Catholic and more about being a 'visible' Catholic. (Biden has been denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist at least once. )

What constitutes a "good" versus "bad" Catholic is under massive debate even at the highest levels of the Vatican.

Why was Biden denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? What kinds of missteps will lead to this censure? Are you allowed the sacrament if you are divorced? How about if you're gay?

Biden's position on abortion removes him from the Communion rail. (It's those darn commandments Moses gave us.)

Last I heard divorce, if you initiate it, removes you as well. If you didn't and don't defile your marriage bed, you're probably OK. My neighbor was a 'good' Catholic in my opinion, but never took Communion because he divorced his first wife.

So divorced people can still be "good Catholics" even though they aren't allowed to receive Communion? It seems like if you aren't allowed to receive Communion then you aren't a good Catholic. Are you even Catholic if you don't receive Communion?

Quote:Gays are not allowed Communion.

So gay people are automatically "bad Catholics"? Seems harsh for a group of people to whom God assigned this sexual orientation?

Quote:I don't there there's that much of a debate about what constitutes a 'good' Catholic and a 'bad' Catholic. But nice try.

Are you serious??? Look at what's happening in Rome and the uproar over Pope Francis. Do you really not think there is a debate?

(02-09-2021 12:07 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:29 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We've come far enough that no one has even batted an eye at Biden's faith - but we clearly have a ways to go.

I serious doubt any practicing Catholic would even suggest Biden is in communion with the Catholic faith. As a Catholic 'feaster' I sure wouldn't.

Going to Mass has very little with being a 'good' Catholic and more about being a 'visible' Catholic. (Biden has been denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist at least once. )

What constitutes a "good" versus "bad" Catholic is under massive debate even at the highest levels of the Vatican.

Why was Biden denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? What kinds of missteps will lead to this censure? Are you allowed the sacrament if you are divorced? How about if you're gay?

Biden's position on abortion removes him from the Communion rail. (It's those darn commandments Moses gave us.)

Last I heard divorce, if you initiate it, removes you as well. If you didn't and don't defile your marriage bed, you're probably OK. My neighbor was a 'good' Catholic in my opinion, but never took Communion because he divorced his first wife.

Gays are not allowed Communion.

I don't there there's that much of a debate about what constitutes a 'good' Catholic and a 'bad' Catholic. But nice try.

(Time to cook supper for the kids and my ex. Adios.)

I believe you just answered your question about political Christians with the bolded.

If opposition to abortion is strictly due to one's adherent to a faith (and that faith is based in Christianity) then by goodness, we got a winner.

Side note - I think we should look for a different term than "good." Observant would be much better.

(02-09-2021 12:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:07 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:29 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We've come far enough that no one has even batted an eye at Biden's faith - but we clearly have a ways to go.

I serious doubt any practicing Catholic would even suggest Biden is in communion with the Catholic faith. As a Catholic 'feaster' I sure wouldn't.

Going to Mass has very little with being a 'good' Catholic and more about being a 'visible' Catholic. (Biden has been denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist at least once. )

What constitutes a "good" versus "bad" Catholic is under massive debate even at the highest levels of the Vatican.

Why was Biden denied the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? What kinds of missteps will lead to this censure? Are you allowed the sacrament if you are divorced? How about if you're gay?

Biden's position on abortion removes him from the Communion rail. (It's those darn commandments Moses gave us.)

Last I heard divorce, if you initiate it, removes you as well. If you didn't and don't defile your marriage bed, you're probably OK. My neighbor was a 'good' Catholic in my opinion, but never took Communion because he divorced his first wife.

Gays are not allowed Communion.

I don't there there's that much of a debate about what constitutes a 'good' Catholic and a 'bad' Catholic. But nice try.

(Time to cook supper for the kids and my ex. Adios.)

I believe you just answered your question about political Christians with the bolded.

If opposition to abortion is strictly due to one's adherent to a faith (and that faith is based in Christianity) then by goodness, we got a winner.

Side note - I think we should look for a different term than "good." Observant would be much better.

Excellent point.

(02-09-2021 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2021 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  LOLOLOL

Take a guess who said this:

“We’re going to explain about how you can’t swear in on the Quran. We’re going to have the Bible and ask them if they would swear in on the Bible … I think that’s important.”

"I really want to go talk to these ladies and ask them what they are thinking, and why they are serving in our American government. They really should go back to the Middle East.”

So how are they different from the other Muslims who are not attacked for being Muslim?

Huh?

I don't actually understand the question, and I don't see how "other Muslims" are relevant to a conversation about Omar being attacked for her views (i.e. her being Muslim).

You said you know of no one who has attacked Omar for being Muslim.

And I still don't. If the only reason she was attacked was for being Muslim, you would think that the other Muslims in Congress and other venues of public life would have been similarly attacked.

First, actions don't have to occur to everyone of a certain group for them to be relevant. So it's a false assumption that if other Muslims in Congress weren't being attacked for being Muslim, that Omar also must not be.

Second, the other Muslims in Congress? You mean Rashida Tlaib? The only other two Muslims in Congress are Keith Ellison and Andre Carson - not idea if they've ever or never been criticized over their faith. Sounds like you may follow their careers closely enough to say that?

Ellison, Yes, Carson, no, and the mere fact that neither has been targeted for his faith puts the lie to the assertation that Omar/Tlaib have been. Unless now you want to shift to their sex?

IMO, Omar/Tlaib have been targeted for their anti-jewish and anti-Israel statement, and their high profile for (a) being part of the Squad, and (b) being loudly proclaimed by the Democrats as evidence of their inclusivity.

Might as well say Jim Jordan is a target for leftists because he is a wrestler. Just because somebody is different in some way does not mean they are targeted on that basis.

(02-09-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So how are they different from the other Muslims who are not attacked for being Muslim?

Huh?

I don't actually understand the question, and I don't see how "other Muslims" are relevant to a conversation about Omar being attacked for her views (i.e. her being Muslim).

You said you know of no one who has attacked Omar for being Muslim.

And I still don't. If the only reason she was attacked was for being Muslim, you would think that the other Muslims in Congress and other venues of public life would have been similarly attacked.

First, actions don't have to occur to everyone of a certain group for them to be relevant. So it's a false assumption that if other Muslims in Congress weren't being attacked for being Muslim, that Omar also must not be.

Second, the other Muslims in Congress? You mean Rashida Tlaib? The only other two Muslims in Congress are Keith Ellison and Andre Carson - not idea if they've ever or never been criticized over their faith. Sounds like you may follow their careers closely enough to say that?

Ellison, Yes, Carson, no, and the mere fact that neither has been targeted for his faith puts the lie to the assertation that Omar/Tlaib have been. Unless now you want to shift to their sex?

Are you 100% sure that Ellison has never been targeted for his faith or had his faith used against him?

I don't know what role gender plays, but I find it absurd that you're trying to wiggle out of the demonstrable fact that Omar's faith has been used against her.

Quote:IMO, Omar/Tlaib have been targeted for their anti-jewish and anti-Israel statement, and their high profile for (a) being part of the Squad, and (b) being loudly proclaimed by the Democrats as evidence of their inclusivity.

Might as well say Jim Jordan is a target for leftists because he is a wrestler. Just because somebody is different in some way does not mean they are targeted on that basis.

Your opinion in no way contradicts or counters the fact that their faith has been a line of attack for some. If it wasn't, Greene would never had said those things about being sworn in on the Bible...

Just bonkers that you feel the need to reject what is plainly obvious.