Question for the Islamophobes...

Other than the amount of body showing: what is the difference between these Amish women and Muslim women wearing their religious dress?

And the Mormons don't drink--gotta problem with that?

BTW, who the eff used the tag "Pennsylvania Dutch"?  It's Pennsylvania German!

FYI

Got it?

Quote of the Day

"Both house and ground were vested and in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service."
The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page49.htm

Quote of the day (or "Hey, Holly, betcha didn't know you had so much in common with a Mooselim")

I became Republican because I felt that my Islamic values – pro-life, pro-traditional family, pro-business, pro-trade – aligned best with the Republican party platform. I identified as a Democrat for several years when I was younger, but found it hard to defend liberal values as they were so often in conflict with my deeply-held beliefs.--Saba Ahmed

Of course, we know the right wing people who denied that there was more similarities than differences in this picture will have "their heads explode" at the above quote:

Sorry, you can hem and haw all you want about Holly somehow being different, but the only difference is that she isn't modestly dressed (1 Timothy 2:9–10).

Holly, the only thing about you which makes my head explode is that you are so ignorant and proud of that fact.

You have so much in common with the people you claim to hate.

Although, One could claim that there has been a huge misunderstanding here. One of these is a picture depicts a good woman and the other, by contrast, must be a picture of a bad woman, right?

Surely, you see that one of these pictures shows a patriotic and faithful citizen, a woman whom many see as representing goodness, possessing characteristics which a sympathetic audience would interpret as truly wholesome. She’s simply holding the common and natural token of her faith in one hand. This is a book, I don’t need to tell anyone here, that we all know of and which many of us have read. And her faith, incidentally, is something which she sees as foundational to the existence of her country and to the very idea of morality; her other hand is locked to the hand grip of the symbol and substance (as she and many like her see it) of freedom and power. I’m sure she regards this as an unquestionable right! With a gun, she seems to say with her smile, “You may think I’m a soft woman, but go ahead and mess with me”. Behind her, the banner of not just her nation or people, but of her own identity.

Of course, the other picture is of an American. I can understand why her followers would be upset.

More on modest dress and Christianity.

You have a problem if Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Not a question, but a statement since the Constitution that some people claim to respect and all that says (Article VI):

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Repeat that last part just to make it clear to you who don't get that the US is a SECULAR Society (like it or not):

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That means it doesn't matter what religion Barack Obama (or Mitt Romney or anybody else for that matter) happens to be.

You might have missed that bit since that paragraph comes right after:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

And if you don't think the founders would support this: guess again:

"Both House and Ground were vested in Trustees, expressly for the Use of any Preacher of any religious Persuasion who might desire to say something to the People of Philadelphia, the Design [purpose] in building not being to accommodate any particular Sect, but the Inhabitants in general, so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a Missionary to preach Mahometanism [Islam] to us, he would find a Pulpit at his Service. "

As I said, you have a problem because the Constitution isn't on your side if you are trying to make someone's religion an issue in US politics.  In fact, religion would not intrude in US politics given the US's being a secular state--I only wish more people would be disgusted by this trend.

But, maybe some of you aren't  the strong supporters of the Constitution that you claim to be.

Or, maybe you just need to brush up on what exactly it is that you are supposed to be defending.

The US is a secular nation: understand that fact.

Cenk on the Michigan Anti-Sharia Law