Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

AUDIO of Sharron Angle suggesting Sharia Law a threat in America

I've got some audio of Sharron Angle suggesting in a town hall meeting that Sharia Law is a threat in America.

Angle's claim was first reported by the Mesquite Local News last week, but it attracted very little attention. The paper sent me a recording of the meeting where Angle addressed the Muslim threat.

You can listen to the recording right here. The audio is fuzzy, but here's my best stab at transcribing the exchange in question, which comes at around the 43 minute mark:

QUESTIONER: I keep hearing about Muslims wanting to take over the United States. And I want to know your thoughts about that. They are building mosques all over the place. They want to build one near [ground zero]. And they seem to be getting their way. On a TV program just last night I saw that they are taking over a city in Michigan. And the residents, they want them out. They want them out. I wanted your thoughts.

ANGLE: We're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe isn't a widespread thing. But it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it. My thoughts are these. First of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under Constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States.

It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States.

It's hard to figure out what precisely Angle is saying here. At a minimum she seems to be suggesting that Sharia Law could take hold in Dearborn and Frankford. She also seems to hint at vague agreement with the questioner who is worried about Muslims taking over the country. While she says the problem of an impending Muslim takeover isn't "widespread," it's "enough that we need to address." She certainly didn't disabuse the poor fellow of his fears.

At any rate, now that audio has surfaced, her comments might get some cable or network play.

UPDATE, 11:13 a.m.: I edited my analysis slightly from the original for the sake of accuracy.

By Greg Sargent  | October 8, 2010; 10:50 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Foreign policy and national security, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: David Vitter's new ad trafficks heavily in race-baiting

Comments

Why are Republican Tea Partiers such COWARDS?

We spend almost $1 TRILLION every year on the military. We have a MASSIVE nuclear arsenal. We have a representative democracy as a political form of government. NOBODY is taking the U.S. over except for giant profiteering corporations who Sharron Angle and the rest of the Republican Tea Party would give their last breath to support.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 8, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

That seems a bit of a distortion of her intent. The quote that stood out for me is:

"We're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe isn't a widespread thing."

The later mention of Sharia sounds like a bit of red meat for the hounds. The important aspect of her statement is that she states that militant terrorism isn't widespread. I'd be comfortable hearing those words from any candidate.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 8, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Fairlington, I don't read her comments that way. The last two sentences of her quote are a suggestion that Sharia Law could be a threat.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 8, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

The dumbest thing about this, and that's saying something, is that religious communities make rules and "laws" for their members all over this country (Jews, fundamentalist Christians, and others). What about those?

This is just a Red Scare. The current bogeyman. It plays on people's fear and ignorance.

Period.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 8, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Maybe this non-story, if properly bracketed with all-caps AUDIO in the title, will divert attention from a Dem Senate candidate calling his opponent a "W_ORE" which is also available via AUDIO?

Is Journolist back in biz?

Posted by: bzod9999 | October 8, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

My comment didn't mean that Greg shouldn't cover it.

He should, and is doing excellent work getting some idea of what this ignorant, dangerous woman believes and the kinds of misinformation she trades in.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 8, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

* Tally: Outside GOP groups outspending Dems 7-1 *

A Democratic operative active in Senate races sends over this summary, from public sources, of outside television and radio spending on the races from August through last night:

Republican Third Party Groups - $43,664,661
Democratic Third Party Groups - $6,658,236

Colorado: Dems: $1.1 million / GOP: $7.6 million

Washington: Dems: $1.5 million / GOP: $4.2 million

Missouri: Dems: $794k / GOP: $7.2 million

Kentucky: Dems: $47k / GOP: $1.7 million

That's a more than seven-to-one advantage, if you're keeping score.

More on this from Jonathan Martin and CPI.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1010/Tally_Outside_GOP_groups_outspending_Dems_71.html

God Bless the Corporate States of America.

We are indeed being taken over.

We have to stand and FIGHT, Democrats, we HAVE TO FIGHT.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 8, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Hey Ethan,
I was an English major, so maybe you can help me out. Do those numbers change when the $100mm Union war chest (to be spent exclusively on Dems) is added to the equation? Math is hard.

Posted by: bzod9999 | October 8, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

"Maybe this non-story, if properly bracketed with all-caps AUDIO in the title, will divert attention from a Dem Senate candidate calling his opponent a "W_ORE" which is also available via AUDIO?"

Actually, it wasn't a Dem Senate candidate, it was a Dem Gov. candidate and he didn't say it, an aide said it, and they apologized for it immediately.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 8, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Greg, why the obsession with Sharron Angle?

It's not as if it matters WHO Reid's opponent is. The election is about how much Reid is loathed, even in his own state. Angle was the best of all possible outcomes for him! I believe that it would be GREAT for Dems if Reid lost to Angle but they kept the Senate. You could then install a majority leader who would be respectable and professional. Plus, you could tag the Reps with Angle's ongoing buffoonish statements for the next six years.

No matter though. The election isn't about Angle. It's strictly and up or down vote on Reid.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 8, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca,
You're absolutely right. A Dem Gov (vs. DemSen) candidate saying it and then offering a typical mealy-mouthed non-apology definitely makes it AOK.

Posted by: bzod9999 | October 8, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Greg, the paper you work for is a piece of garbage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705485.html

Sorry, but it is.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 8, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I used to live mere blocks away from "Frankford" Texas, which was annexed by Dallas in 1975.
http://207.200.58.4/handbook/online/articles/FF/hvf82.html

There is no "Frankford, Texas" anymore and hasn't been for decades. Its suburban sprawl. She's full of shiite

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 8, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"Union war chest (to be spent exclusively on Dems) is added to the equation? Math is hard."

Math IS hard.

That's why you should support America's teachers instead of trying to demonize them like they were part of an evil cabal to make American children into blood-sucking devils.

Your attempt to impugn hard-working Americans is a joke and you are a fraud.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 8, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Mike -- I work for a Web site. :)

Posted by: sargegreg | October 8, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

bzod999, you missed the rest of my comment, the candidate didn't say it, an aide said it. Stupid comment, but let's at least get the facts right okay?

Think what you want, I was just trying to correct the mis-information.

Have a good day all.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 8, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Hey Ethan,
I am hoping that you've switched over to satire, and that my lefty sarcasm meter needs re-calibrating. If not, whoa.

Demonize and impugn? Evil cabal? Methinks you don't know what those words mean.

Also, project much?

Posted by: bzod9999 | October 8, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

OT

Seen on Morning Joe this morning:

Clip of Christine O'Donnell - "I am not a witch."

Clip of Richard Nixon - "I am not a crook."

Photo of GWB in a kitchen with a voice over - "I am not allowed to use the stove by myself."

LOL

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 8, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

If it's rational for liberals to fear a Christian theocracy taking over in America, why is it so crazy to fear Sharia law?

I think it's a bit nutty to fear either but at least I recognize that the irrational reside on both sides of the political spectrum.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 8, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"Frankford", Texas. I'm getting a big kick out of this. The *area* was annexed by Dallas in 1975. The freaking *post office* was closed in 1904 and wasn't even on local maps anymore by 1930!

I wonder if this wasn't a plant by someone and her campaign didn't check it out?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 8, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Denial is ugly and non productive. Insisting that no threat exists when simple prudence says otherwise is not what rational people would call leadership. Yet here we are being scolded by know it all Liberals. "Nothing to see here, move along".

Here's a statement from the leader of the muslim brotherhood:
"Arab and Muslim regimes are betraying their people by failing to confront the Muslim's real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded.

All Muslims are required by their religion to fight: "They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life." (Notice that jihad here is not interpreted, as it is so often in the West, as spiritual striving. The clear meaning is one of armed struggle).

The United States is immoral, doomed to collapse, and "experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise."

the statement comes directly from the group's "Supreme Guide", Muhammad Badi. He took charge just a short while ago.

The brotherhood is huge with far more members than Al Q. It is influential in America and it has just declared war on us.

Do the liberal pseudo elites like oh say Ethan, recall the statement made by the imam on Amanpour's show? The flag of sharia over the white house?

The liberals can deny that the arab/muslims can actually acheive thier objective. But as we saw on 9/11 no one can deny that they will try hard.

Left in charge liberals will get us all killed. We've seen enough of the murderous ways of the Islamists to take the threat seriously. Instead of banal Bubulum Stercus about a candidate, why not engage in some serious thought about the threat we face?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, I'm on the plum line. All liberal all the time.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 8, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

@mike and greg

I just saw that. It's difficult to conceive of what Hiatt might do to trash this paper further, short of hiring Beck and Palin to write regular columns. If not for Greg...

Posted by: bernielatham | October 8, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Mike, OMG, that's unbelievable. Just an epic fail.

And the Trib endorsed Mark Kirk today.

F the F-ing newspapers.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 8, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

I see a Romney/Angle ticket in two years...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/angle-in-flap-as-pastor-calls-reids-mormon-religion-a-murderous-cult.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: bernielatham | October 8, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"Left in charge liberals will get us all killed."

Just look at the insanity.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 8, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

@SBJ "If it's rational for liberals to fear a Christian theocracy taking over in America, why is it so crazy to fear Sharia law?"

Are you freaking serious? Really?
First of all your premise is completely flawed by your insertion of "liberal". It's not just the liberals. Christopher Hitchens is hardly a liberal nor are many others who are disturbed by the religiosity that is overwhelming our politics. Can you imagine an Atheist getting elected President, much less a Muslim. Poor Mittens has difficulty because he is a member of LDS. It's almost impossible to even be considered as a candidate without being a Christian.

Geesh SBJ just do the simple math.
Muslims comprise 3% of our nation. 3%!!!!!!
Christians who claim to attend church on a regular basis 42% !!! And of course that does NOT include those who identify as Christians but do not attend regularly.

Let's look at what U.S. Leaders have said.
Mike Huckabee R Presidential candidate...The Bible should take precedence over the Constitution. That's about as direct as I can dig up but certainly Sister Sarah...and Jim Demented have also used the Bible to back up their assertions as to how our society should behave and organize.

How many Muslim elected officials have referred to the Koran. Whoa...exactly how many ELECTED MUSLIMS are there in our nation.

SBJ you have just fallen into the Faux news right wing black hole of FALSE EQUIVALENCY. Your statement is absurd!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 8, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

bzod, if you think organized labor has as much money as the CofC and the Koch's and Karl Rove's GPS outfit, than you are stupider than you sound.

I'm embarrassed you were an English major. Or did you mean in high school?

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 8, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

skip, with this kind of thing you continue to demonstrate your ignorance:

"Left in charge liberals will get us all killed. We've seen enough of the murderous ways of the Islamists to take the threat seriously. Instead of banal Bubulum Stercus about a candidate, why not engage in some serious thought about the threat we face?"

Do you even KNOW any Muslims? How many? In what context?

That there are radical Islamists in the world is pretty obvious, but the only people wrecking this country are white people in suits. Idiot.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 8, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

@Skip...."The United States is immoral, doomed to collapse, and "experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise."

You do realize that Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell among hundreds of other Christians have uttered EXACTLY these same words. They blamed 9/11 on OUR unholy behavior. Stop wetting your pants Skip!!!

BG was exactly correct when he pointed out that this is nothing more than the current "Red Scare". The right has used fear to control us since the end of WWII and probably longer...but certainly in a massive way since 1945.

Quake in your boots skip I choose to not give in to fear and cowardice...and calling me or other progressives "know it alls" proves nothing...except perhaps the lack of depth of your own intellect.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 8, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

@sbj3: "If it's rational for liberals to fear a Christian theocracy taking over in America"

That's a big if. Cuz it's not remotely rational to fear Christian theocracy taking over the US.

"why is it so crazy to fear Sharia law?"

Cuz this is also crazy unlikely. In much more nutty-liberal (generally) Germany, where a judge attempted to apply Sharia law in a case, the judge was summarily given the boot for the decision.

We're a long way from Sharia law taking over Dearborn, I think.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 8, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan - Yes, it is nuts. But the anger and misapprehensions and noise of it all has the function that Orwell understood.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 8, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

@Skip "The United States is immoral, doomed to collapse, and "experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise."

You do realize this could have been lifted right out of a Pat Robertson broadcast. Or one from the late Jerry Falwell. You do realize skip that Robertson and many of his ilk blamed 9/11 on US because of THEIR perceived lack of our morality.

And firing off shots like "know it all" liberals reveals nothing except your lacking intellectual ability!

If you wish to cower like a frightened little sheep and wet your bed, knock yourself out. But please don't ask us to join you.

BG correctly pointed out this is nothing more than the current version of the "red scare" Since WWII and probably before then the right wing in this country has used FEAR to keep us under control and to distract us from the massive shift in wealth to the corporatists. And so skippy while you worry about the "Muslim threat of Sharia" I continue to wonder why the wealth in the country is shifting at an unprecented rate into the hands of the top 2%.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 8, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

@BG: "Do you even KNOW any Muslims? How many? In what context?"

I've known (and know now) a few. The classically liberal Muslims (like those I know now) are all awesome, and are hyper-critical of Sharia, of the conservative orthodoxy of "radical" Islam, etc. In the past, I've know more traditional or orthodox Muslims and, while anecdotal, it was interesting to observe they were generally pretty polite to women in person, but when discussing them in the abstract, talked as if they were lower than dogs. Which never sat well in the setting (a liberal arts art school).

They never discussed killing Americans, infidels, or instituting Sharia law (the concept of Sharia never came up). The second-class status of women was presented as largely cultural, and argued for as a cultural right (i.e., you can't say anything about it, you don't understand our cultural heritage).

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 8, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI,
Really? You think the Rs have more shadow money than the Ds? That is the true embarrassment.

Also, not to be pedantic, but stupider, while a word, is generally used by elementary school kids on the playground. Though most internet political discussion is not far from that, if you want to sound a touch more refined (less stupid?) maybe try "more stupid" in its place the next time.

It would sting all the more, and you won't sound like a 7 year-old.

Your welcome. Or is it you're? I never know.

Posted by: bzod9999 | October 8, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to the reliable lefties here for proving my point about denial.

Here's just a few examples:
"That there are radical Islamists in the world is pretty obvious, but the only people wrecking this country are white people in suits. Idiot."

Hat tip to BGinCHI You go guy. Dwell in denial while hurling racial slurs. Is that what liberalism is really about?

Next there is this:
"Just look at the insanity." Ethan who is getting his clock cleaned yet again by Kevin thinks it is insane to take statements made by the head of a powerful Islamic group seriously. Once again, dwelling in denial. I wonder how many more attacks on Americans it will take to change ethan's mind.

Then there is this:
"BG was exactly correct when he pointed out that this is nothing more than the current "Red Scare". The right has used fear to control us since the end of WWII and probably longer...but certainly in a massive way since 1945."

Chemical Dependency counselors call this "intellectual denial" It is the kind of thought process that leads otherwise educated people into traps like drug addiction. You've explained it all away, haven't you? How nice. No doubt the victims of the next attack will find comfort in your angry, foolish words.

Listen guys you can engage in all the childish name calling you like. Clearly greg is impotent to stop that. But you cannot change the facts. The muslim world has declared war on us. It wasn't a bunch of angry white guys that did 9/11 or any of the other hideous attacks. It wasn't an out of work stock broker that placed the bomb in times square.

All you've managed to do is show yourselves as ideologically blinkered and completely unserious. The threat is real and thankfully adults in America are heeding it.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 8, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

@ruk: I have no fear, as apparently you do, that christianity is a threat to our democracy. I call that nutty.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 8, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

@skip: "Kevin thinks it is insane to take statements made by the head of a powerful Islamic group seriously."

I didn't say that, did I? Extrapolate if you like, but I would suggest (as I often do to the loyal opposition here) that if you want clarification, ask questions, rather than say I said something I didn't say.

What the head of a powerful Islamic group claims to want doesn't have a tremendous amount of bearing on what is actually going to happen.

Also, you seem to be conflating incipient pockets of Islam-in-America being governed by Sharia law with terrorists attacks. You can have one without the other. Ergo, we are always at risk of terrorist attack, but not particularly at risk of being taken over by Sharia law.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 8, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Here are a few news items for you lefties about Islam in Dearborn.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-search.cgi?search=dearborn&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20


I don't know about you all, but I would start having a problem with my son's football practice being scheduled in the middle of the night for Ramadan, or being arrested and prosecuted for proseletyzing for Christianity.

"The dumbest thing about this, and that's saying something, is that religious communities make rules and "laws" for their members all over this country (Jews, fundamentalist Christians, and others). What about those?"

There is also a basic difference between this and Islamist belief that everyone must live subject to Islamic law.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 8, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

IMHO this entire debate about "theocracies" needs to be clarified. I accept Kevin's opinion that we are not headed to a PURE theocracy of any form.

However I do not view "theocracy" as an absolute. Secular views do not mitigate against divorce, premarital sex,..well this list could go on and on. However we have seen leaders who using their "Christian" faith have literally tried to CHANGE our laws to reflect a more Christian perspective. And of course I haven't even broached what right wing Christians are doing to our school books in Texas or our science around the country.

One example here in Florida. Alan Grayson's opponent Daniel Webster as Speaker of the Florida House introduced legislation supporting "Covenant" marriages. Anybody who signed on to these would have been forbidden to divorce for ANY reason..including domestic violence.
This along with all the discrimination against gays is an outgrowth of Christian religious intolerance against what they call "Secular humanism". Is our Constitution going to be replaced by the Bible or the Koran? NO! I agree with Kevin. If they continue to gain enough power would the Christian right change our laws in ways that reflect their Christianity...ABSOLUTELY!

Pure theocracy? NO! Virtual theocracy? Not out of the question IMHO.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 8, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

@kevin: "@sbj3: "If it's rational for liberals to fear a Christian theocracy taking over in America"

That's a big if. Cuz it's not remotely rational to fear Christian theocracy taking over the US.

"why is it so crazy to fear Sharia law?"

Cuz this is also crazy unlikely.

===========

That was my point!

Posted by: sbj3 | October 8, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

@Q.B. "There is also a basic difference between this and Islamist belief that everyone must live subject to Islamic law."

You mean this is different than my community where I can't have a Mimosa at a Sunday brunch before 12noon because it contains alcohol? Why the City of St. Petersburg has to annually give a special "waiver" for alcohol sales before noon on Sunday to accommodate the annual Grand Prix race.

Of course the fact that we've had all these Sunday Blue Laws has nothing to do with Christians believing that we ALL must accommodate their faith.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 8, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

@sbj3: "I have no fear, as apparently you do, that christianity is a threat to our democracy."

We've had fundamentalist religious types in the country before the American revolution. They've had, what, 250 years? If they were going to make into a theocracy, they probably would have done it by now. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 8, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

@Q.B. "There is also a basic difference between this and Islamist belief that everyone must live subject to Islamic law."

You mean unlike our Sunday Blue Laws. In my community I still have to wait until noon for a cocktail at Sunday brunch. The city of St. Petersburg has to issue a special "waiver" annually for pre noon alcohol sales to accommodate the Grand Prix auto race.

But then these "Sunday Blue Laws" would not be an attempt at Christians forcing the rest of us to live subject to their beliefs.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 8, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

All, Adam Serwer's new post on David Vitter's race-baiting new ad:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/vitter_jumping_on_the_anti-imm.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 8, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

[@ 10:59 AM on October 8, 2010 Ethan2010 yawned, scratched his keister, rolled over in bed, grabbed his I-Pod, failed to reach human status and Posted...:

"Why are...Partiers...such COWARDS..."]

Well there you go again...I don't know Ethan, maybe it's because the most dense place in the Universe isn't a dark star, but between some of you creature's ears...

Posted by: RichNomore | October 8, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

...what is that stuff in there, anyway Eth...the same goo BP used to plug the Horizon well leak?

Posted by: RichNomore | October 8, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

This debate is idiotic. We live in a country where the largest religious group are christians. They can't even get a statue of the Ten Commandments put up without fighting all the way to the Supreme Court. And yet somehow I'm supposed to buy this line that a tiny ethnic and religious minority was somehow able to supplant the Constitution without so much as a whimper?


Go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all filled up here.

Posted by: raincntry | October 8, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"Secular views do not mitigate against divorce, premarital sex,..well this list could go on and on."

There is the view that without God there is no basis for morality. If, however, one rejects that view and believes there is a "secular" basis for morality, as well as law, then in fact there are secular moral arguments against divorce, premarital sex, etc. That is, ruk is mistaking his own secular morality with the universe of possible moral systems.

I don't know anything about the "covenenant marriage" proposal and don't know whether it is a good idea, but it is a fact that divorce laws across the country were liberalized to make divorce much easier and in most cases purely elective. The logic of ruk's argument must be that those prior laws were theocratic. Hmm. Not terribly persuasive.

Similarly, it simply isn't true that what ruk calls "discrimination against gays" -- presumably resistance to gay marriage? -- is exclusively rooted in Christianity or any other religion. National Review's recent essay on the matter was a good illustration of this. And, again, it is amazing that people like ruk have so utterly inverted reality and common sense that they believe we are sliding into theocracy because of resistance to changing marriage laws that have ALWAYS until now not provided for gay marriage.

Just think about how illogical that argument is. It would suggest that we have been living under theocracy all along. Silly, very silly stuff.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 8, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

@SBJ "I have no fear, as apparently you do, that christianity is a threat to our democracy. I call that nutty."

Perhaps you have gathered from my subsequent posts that I do not fear a PURE Christian Theocracy threatening our democracy. I am far more worried about the corporatists and the secret money.

However simple observation shows that INDEED the Christian have historically impinged upon our rights. And we don't have to go all the way back to the Scopes Monkey trial for examples. Having worked in the South my entire adult life I have seen Sunday blue laws. The only thing that finally broke up the power of the Southern Christian churches and the loons like Jim Demented was MONEY. Wal Mart was not going to stay closed on Sunday no matter how loudly the religious nuts squealed. Blue laws have largely been getting pushed back over the past few decades...but given the rise of the Tea Party (a synonym for the Christian right) and their leaders like Demented, Palin, Angle, O'Donnell et al..it's hardly paranoid to worry about their effects on social policy and not just blue laws, or teaching of evolution...but also gay rights.

That why your defense of them as somewhat benign is simply amazing SBJ. Seriously does it not disturb you that you NEVER had a chance to run for President as an uncloseted gay? Do you suppose we progressives are the ones who view you as an abomination headed to hell, unfit for public office, unfit to even teach school...is that the secular humanists who wish to deprive you of your rights SBJ or is it the religious right? It's time to wake up SBJ. I get that you are a fiscal conservative and therefore feel obliged to support the R's...but on social policy? That comes across as self loathing.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 8, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"You mean unlike our Sunday Blue Laws. In my community I still have to wait until noon for a cocktail at Sunday brunch. "

You wouldn't have that problem if you were in church where you belong. ; )

SCOTUS held that blue laws are not an unconstitutional establishment of religion, because they serve a secular purpose. (And, actually, I'm not aware of any particular Christian "law" they enforce.) Again, it would appear that, if this is untrue, we were living under much greater theocracy before blue laws were mostly abolished.

But I suppose we should get rid of many of our laws, since they can be persuasively argued to have roots in Christianity. We shouldn't have laws against perjury or false statements or murder, for example.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 8, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Damn those Muslim Americans for refusing to serve communion to catholic politicians who will not take orders from the Vatican, but instead support a right for women, that the Supreme court has ruled to be constitutional.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 8, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

[@ 12:26 PM on October 8, 2010 Kevin_Willis most concisely inferring Posted...:
"...Also, you seem to be...without...Ergo...law."]

Kev...there's definitely too much extrapolatin' goin' on out 'dere and especially that conflatin', but some pockets are more incipient than others.

Don't you agree?

Posted by: RichNomore | October 8, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

[@ 12:26 PM on October 8, 2010 Kevin_Willis most concisely inferring Posted...:
"...Also, you seem to be...without...Ergo...law."]

Kev...there's definitely too much extrapolatin' goin' on out 'dere and especially that conflatin', but some pockets are more incipient than others.

Don't you agree?

Posted by: RichNomore | October 8, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

blue laws might have had a secular purpose that saved them from being thrown out, but they were religious in origin and intent. Thankfully we have the constitution to protect us from christians trying to make this a religious nation.

the idea that Sharia law is a threat is just too absurd for words. the pope can tell catholics not to eat meat on Fridays in Lent, but we needn't fear any judge enforcing that church law, or any judge recognizing Sharia law (which will never be state or federal law) in a U.S. Court (except perhaps indirectly if enforcing a contract, for example, between two Muslims who agree that it is subject to interpretation under Sharia principles, which any two parties are free to do as a matter of contract freedom)

Posted by: JoeT1 | October 8, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Da*n Liam-still,

What an abortion in logic, sort of a Rubic's Loop. Please, please, don't turn a Plum Line into a Plum Crazy Thread.

Believe it...those neo-sheet-heads can take care of themselves, and WE have heard the screams of the Women they take care of.

Think about it Li......, what country do they come from anyway? Do Muslimistan-Americans receive fair (rule of OUR law) treatment in their country(ies)?

Posted by: RichNomore | October 8, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"You're absolutely right. A Dem Gov (vs. DemSen) candidate saying it and then offering a typical mealy-mouthed non-apology definitely makes it AOK."
--------------------------------
bzod9999:

Your'e missing the point, I didn't call anyone a w***e, you didn't call anyone a w***e, and Jerry Brown, candidate for governor of the State of California didn't call anyone a w***e. One of Jerrys' aides used that "colorful metaphor". Here's the latest:

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/08/3089091/brown-campaign-apologizes-for.html

As to how sincere these political apologies are, I'm not making any claims.

Posted by: shadowmagician | October 8, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

I reread the section. We did emphasize different portions and I think it is laudable that she emphasized that this is a small minority. Credit where it's due.

I listened to the recent debate on Muslim extremism held in NYC. It was on an outstanding episode of This Week. Some sentiments expressed were depressing, including those of a London-based Islamic extremist.

"Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under Constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know ***how that happened*** in the United States."

She comes off remarkably uniformed. She seems to be saying that Sharia has taken hold in Dearborn and Frankford, not that it could. The asterisks in the quote are mine, mainly because I wanted to emphasize the tense. Unless she's referring to how constitutional law took hold in the U.S. To quote Inigo Montoya, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 8, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"If it's rational for liberals to fear a Christian theocracy taking over in America, why is it so crazy to fear Sharia law?"

No more calls, please. We have a winner in the "strawman of the day" contest.

Posted by: Observer691 | October 8, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

@ruk: "I get that you are a fiscal conservative and therefore feel obliged to support the R's...but on social policy? That comes across as self loathing."

I am not aware that I *do* support any GOP social policies that discriminate against gay people?

And I love myself. Quite happy, really.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 8, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

We don't have a Christian theocracy, but certainly the government has been controlled by Protestantism for the entire existence of this nation. That is unless, of course, you think that 43 out of 44 Presidents and every session of House and Senate that have met since the founding, being majority and sometimes almost exclusively Protestant was a coincidence.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 8, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Who needs the imagined threat of sharia law when we have the REAL threat of candidates that,IF elected would have us live under Sharron law???

Posted by: HairHoFla | October 8, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone else hear her say she stripped at her father's motel?

I think she was talking about making beds. Still funny.

Posted by: H-Bomb | October 8, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

@54465446 I certainly accept the validity of your post and I find it interesting that you not only point out the disproportionate number of Christians in our leadership structures but have singled out Protestants in particular...leaving JFK a Catholic out of the mix..unless I am misreading your history.

@Q.B or any other Constitutional legal scholars.

Forgive me for being lazy...but seriously no snark intended...a few questions.

Have we ever had an Atheist on our Supreme Court? How many? Perhaps an Agnostic?
Even a Deist? Maybe early on since many of our Founding Fathers were Deists and not Christians.

54465446 has already pointed out the lack of anybody but a Christian in the W.H.

Have we ever had an Atheist as a Senator?

Has anybody ever paraded around saying this is a Muslim nation? An Atheist Nation? A Christian nation?

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 8, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

These are Muslim communities. Why not ask some of the Muslim women if they are governed by Sharia law instead of slanting this article for political purposes? This is how it starts. The intimidation starts like an infection and grows. Don't think it can't happen here. That's how it happened in France.

Posted by: box211 | October 8, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Off the top of my head, I think Oliver Wendell Holmes was probably an atheist or at least functionally so, perhaps an agnostic by modern accounting.

I'm not aware of and Presidents, but I'm no great presidential historian.

I happen to think Barry Goldwater was at best an agnostic at heart. And I have little doubt at all there are atheistic representatives and Senators today.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 8, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

@Q.B. Thanks for your anwer. I was simply curious.

I'm not going to disagree with your observation about atheistic reps or Senators, but I would suggest that if they exist...they remain in the closet...much as many of our gays have done historically.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 8, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Angle and Gingrich have a point to an extent. The problem is that they don't take into account that everyone in America does not have their belief in religion or politics. Them introducing the idea of sharia law and inflaming the situation for deranged people who would go the opposite way of the majority out of spite are promoting the Muslim religion in America.
Although I believe in God and creation as the Father, the son and the holy ghost, I also believe that religion is the curse of mankind. Everyone of these religions past judgement in one form or another on one another. Everyone of them are greedy lustful sinners. No matter what religion they are. They all declare their religion the right one.
One things for absolutely sure though, so long as there's religion, there will be war.

Posted by: kimkimminni1 | October 8, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Reasonable people can believe that Islam, in the form of Sharia law, is a threat.

See, e.g., http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/article%20pdfs/Shariah%20-%20The%20Threat%20to%20America%20(Team%20B%20Report)%20Web%20Version%2009302010.pdf

Posted by: dschneid727 | October 8, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

rukidding wrote:

"I certainly accept the validity of your post and I find it interesting that you not only point out the disproportionate number of Christians in our leadership structures but have singled out Protestants in particular...leaving JFK a Catholic out of the mix..unless I am misreading your history."

No as I said he was the only non-Protestant president ever, 43 out of 44. While Catholics today have come into their own, especially on the Supreme Court for the first time, this session of Congress, like every other one that has gone before it is a Protestant majority.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 8, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

dschneid727 wrote:

Wow, that was long but thanks for the cite. The problem is that the whole book uses the term jihad and Sharia law interchangeably. Yes, we are under the threat of jihad, no there is no chance of sharia taking hold.

Islamic fund raising for jihadi purposes is a real and ongoing criminal activity that is and should be stopped. Whenever you want to cut off an activity, stopping the money flow is the first action to be taken. However there is nothing whatsoever in the book about sharia law in the US except the one, immediately overturned, family court case that everyone is familiar with. I read page after page about the theory of the Muslim Brotherhood etc. and what's in the Koran, but nothing about any place in America, not one single place where ANY attempt has been made of any kind to have sharia supplant, augment , or overturn US law. Even in the family court case. the husband wasn't contesting the jurisdiction of the court, he was trying to escape the consequences of the domestic violence he had committed.

I think that this is worthy reading for people who are interested, and reiterates that there are jihadists who want to commit acts of violence against this country for religious reason. That evidence is indiputable.

HOWEVER, Muslims comprise less than 1% of the US population and are virtually non-existent in the centers of power in this nation. In the 20th century and into the 21st century, Muslims have made less progress into the corridors of power in this nation than any other religion, even many minor ones.

They can and will continue to kill us, and if given the opportunity will do so in high numbers, but they are no threat whatsoever to take over our nation and nothing in this report proves otherwise.

Once again though terrific research tool and thank you.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 8, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

For crying out loud, will this nonsense ever stop about Sharia law? A Christian witness complains to the Christian police lead by a Christian chief supported by a Christian mayor. Christian officers investigate and find an extremist group is not obeying the law and arrest them. The only thing remotely "Muslim" about this is the Arab festival outside of which all this happened. Okay, what if it was a Jewish festival? How about a Hindu festival? Gosh, what if it was a Christian festival? Stop with the Sharia law business. It's NOT true. Has the world gone completely mad?
http://wqebelle.blogspot.com/2010/08/dearborn-michigan-watch-out-for.html

Posted by: wqbelle | October 12, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

For crying out loud, will this nonsense ever stop about Sharia law? A Christian witness complains to the Christian police lead by a Christian chief supported by a Christian mayor. Christian officers investigate and find an extremist group is not obeying the law and arrest them. The only thing remotely "Muslim" about this is the Arab festival outside of which all this happened. Okay, what if it was a Jewish festival? How about a Hindu festival? Gosh, what if it was a Christian festival? Stop with the Sharia law business. It's NOT true. Has the world gone completely mad?
http://wqebelle.blogspot.com/2010/08/dearborn-michigan-watch-out-for.html

Posted by: wqbelle | October 12, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company