Christians Agree: America is a Muslim Country

Blog Against Theocracy 2008

Fundamentalist Christians are quick to claim that the United States was founded on Christian principles. For one piece of evidence, they point to the Declaration of Independence. The very first sentence of our founding document states, in part:

…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…

The very next sentence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Hot damn! God is mentioned in the first sentence and then again in the second! That settles it!

The problem here is that the god is completely undefined. Intentionally so, because that defers to the personal beliefs of each citizen. The founders were not about to set forth in this document a declaration of what the citizens believed or should believe.

If they had meant the Christian God, they would have said “the Christian God”. Instead, they wrote “their Creator” and “Nature’s God”. “Their Creator” is the creator of the individual’s choice—the creator within that individual’s personally-held beliefs.

The phrase “Nature’s God” certainly doesn’t sound like Yahweh to me. It actually sounds pagan. How do we know they weren’t referring to an Earth deity? In fact, for all we know, they were referring to the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Well Since You Mentioned It…

The fundamentalist Christians have entered the Declaration of Independence into evidence. That means it’s fair game to further examine this document for clues. In fact, let’s take another look at that second sentence, specifically:

…with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

“Unalienable Rights”. That’s an interesting concept. Where did it come from? The phrase is more commonly referred to as “inalienable rights”, about which Wikipedia says:

The idea that certain rights are inalienable was found in early Islamic law and jurisprudence, which denied a ruler “the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being.” [emphasis added]

That’s right. This most basic of concepts, declared as “self-evident” in our founding document, is based on Islamic law!

Let’s read a little further in that same Wikipedia paragraph:

These ideas may have influenced John Locke’s concept of inalienable rights through his attendance of lectures given by Edward Pococke, a professor of Arabic studies.

There you have the direct line of descent. From Islamic law to John Locke to the Declaration of Independence. It can’t be any clearer.

The next paragraph elaborates:

In 17th-century England, philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, and identified them as being “life, liberty, and estate (or property)”, and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract.

In an early draft of the Declaration, Jefferson originally wrote “life, liberty, and property”. This was a direct incorporation of John Locke’s writings. Jefferson expanded the concept in the final draft into “the pursuit of happiness”, but its roots are unmistakable.

Therefore, by using the fundies’ very own logic of citing the Declaration of Independence as proof, we are forced to conclude that America isn’t a Christian country, it’s a Muslim country!

But wait! There’s more!

Many American Laws are Based on Islamic Law

America’s Islamic heritage is far greater than a few concepts mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Much of American law has been derived from English common law. Much of English common law has been derived from Islamic law.

The Wikipedia entry on Sharia has numerous examples. Here are just a few:

It has been suggested that several fundamental English common law institutions may have been derived or adapted from similar legal institutions in Islamic law and jurisprudence, and introduced to England after the Norman conquest of England by the Normans, who conquered and inherited the Islamic legal administration of the Emirate of Sicily, and also by Crusaders during the Crusades.

According to Professor John Makdisi, the “royal English contract protected by the action of debt is identified with the Islamic Aqd, the English assize of novel disseisin is identified with the Islamic Istihqaq, and the English jury is identified with the Islamic Lafif.”… These influences have led some scholars to suggest that Islamic law may have laid the foundations for “the common law as an integrated whole”. [emphasis added]

The section on English common law concludes with:

Other likely influences of Islamic law on English common law include the concepts of a passive judge, impartial judge, res judicata, the judge as a blank slate, individual self-definition, justice rather than morality, the law above the state, individualism, freedom of contract, privilege against self-incrimination, fairness over truth, individual autonomy, untrained and transitory decision making, overlap in testimonial and adjudicative tasks, appeal, dissent, day in court, prosecution for perjury, oral testimony, and the judge as a moderator, supervisor, announcer and enforcer rather than an adjudicator.

The article then lists numerous additional concepts that American common law grabbed from Islam. Here’s a big one:

Similarities between Islamic law and the common law of the United States have also been noted, particularly in regards to Constitutional law.

Want more? How about the effect of Islamic law on property law? Or civil law? (See the wikipedia article for long lists of both.)

Need even more proof? How about one of our most cherished of all principles:

Another influence of Islamic law on the civil law tradition was the presumption of innocence, which was introduced to Europe by Louis IX of France soon after he returned from Palestine during the Crusades. Prior to this, European legal procedure consisted of either trial by combat or trial by ordeal. In contrast, Islamic law was based on the presumption of innocence from its beginning…. [emphasis added]

Conclusion

Is America based upon Christian principles? There are probably some enshrined within our foundation. But as I have clearly shown, much of America’s founding is based upon, and owes a debt of gratitude to, the enlightened civilizations of the Muslims.

A Christian country? Maybe in parts. A Muslim country? Yes, very much so.

64 Responses to “Christians Agree: America is a Muslim Country”

  1. Really? Says:

    Ok so let me say that some of the points you make are interesting, and I’m sure that some Muslim ideas can be correlated with concepts in our constitution (the John Locke connection seems fairly convincing), but you hardly prove it. Although I’m sure I would be inclined to agree with you in many arenas (and am also hugely disgusted by fundamentalists), I don’t see how vague references to Wikipedia on the commonalities between Islamic principles and the centuries-old English common law prove, or even significantly support the notion that our country and/or constitution are based on Islam. Having Wikipedia as your sole source of background information isn’t exactly a cornerstone of convincing arguments, especially when nearly all of your references to your one source are opinions of individual historians, and more often than not made overtly ambiguous by phrases like “other likely influences…,” “It has been suggested…,” and “similarities…have been noted.” You also say:
    “The article then lists numerous additional concepts that American common law grabbed from Islam. Here’s a big one:

    Similarities between Islamic law and the common law of the United States have also been noted, particularly in regards to Constitutional law.

    Well, I’m not sure how that’s a concept that American common law grabbed from Islam; that’s pretty much just a reiteration of what you just said. Funny, because right after you say that, you ask if I want even more proof. Well, yes, I do actually because you haven’t given me any. You’ve given me a summary of a Wikipedia article, and not a particularly conise one at that. If you actially did some research and supported your assertion that America is a Muslim country with evidence other than that found on a website which has been known to be influenced by private interests, I’d be a little more convinced.

  2. Ron Britton Says:

    Instead of making vague statements about Wikipedia being sometimes wrong, why don’t you show me the specifics. Which parts of my article are in error?

    I agree that some of the statements in the Wikipedia article are frustratingly non-committal. That just shows that not all historians agree on everything.

    If you’re expecting in-depth original research, you shouldn’t be reading blogs. I happened to come across those articles, and I thought the Islamic connection was fascinating, so I summarized what I found.

    You criticize me for quoting Wikipedia. Then (in the interests of brevity) when I choose to not quote long passages of the article and instead direct you where to find additional info, you criticize me for not quoting Wikipedia.

    The point of this article is that much of U.S. law is based upon common law, which was heavily influenced by Islamic law. Many of our core legalistic principles trace their origins directly back to the Islamic civilizations that were busy developing while we were preoccupied with the Dark Ages.

    Fundies make vague claims about the U.S. being a Christian country, but they provide no proof. I just gave you a bunch of proof (and I showed you where to get even more) that much of our legalistic foundations are Islamic. If you want to complain to somebody about not providing any proof, talk to the people who claim this is a Christian country.

  3. Charles Vanden Hoek Says:

    I’m no historian, but two thoughts come to mind.

    1.) What came first; the chicken or the egg?

    2.) Does not Christianity predate Islam?

    Whichever branch of ‘fundies’ are referred to I hope are not offended by the term.

  4. Ron Britton Says:

    Charles:

    The fact that Christianity predates Islam is irrelevant. Christians did not invent all of those legal principles.

  5. Jonas Says:

    Love this article. A thing pops into my mind though. What about 9/11 then? If USA is Muslim, you’ve just emphasized my belief in who stood behind twin tower breakdown….!

  6. Ron Britton Says:

    Jonas:

    I’m not saying that the U.S. really is Muslim. Fundies claim the U.S. is a Christian country, because our laws are somehow based on the 10 Commandments (but they offer no proof that this is actually the case).

    Many of our laws have Islamic roots. So if the country is somehow one particular religion because of where its laws come from, then the Christian fundies, using their own logic, have just proven that we aren’t a Christian country but are in fact Muslim.

    The reality is that it doesn’t matter where you get your laws from. What matters is what those laws actually say, which is there is a wall of separation between church and state. The U.S. is neither Christian nor Muslim, but secular, and for people of all faiths.

  7. John D Says:

    From “Really”

    I don’t see how vague references to Wikipedia on the commonalities between Islamic principles and the centuries-old English common law prove, or even significantly support the notion that our country and/or constitution are based on Islam.

    Then you missed the whole point, Mr. Really. The connection between the foundation of the USA and Islamic law is as strong as the connection between the foundation of this country and Christianity in specific.

    That’s what the author was getting at. Look at phrases like “by using the fundies’ very own logic” and remember them.

  8. Johnny Crow Says:

    Loved the article. I loved how you used their own false proofs as a tool against the general christian fundies.

    You are duly right in saying:

    “The reality is that it doesn’t matter where you get your laws from. What matters is what those laws actually say, which is there is a wall of separation between church and state. The U.S. is neither Christian nor Muslim, but secular, and for people of all faiths.”

    Perfect!

    Oh and I noticed someone commented that Christianity “predates” Islam. But what of other religions before them?

    Hinduism 2000 BCE
    Judaism 1500-1350 BCE
    Then, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism

    THEN FINALLY… Christianity 1-33 CE, then Shinto, then Islam 570-632 CE
    then of course Sikhism, Baha’i and other various beliefs after that.

    But of course… you can never forget that we were all Antitheist, Atheist, or just simply human.. ever think of that?

    Again thanks for the great post!

  9. Charles Vanden Hoek Says:

    Christianity, of necessity, ‘piggybacks’ (so to speak) on Judaism. Those of the former faith feel theirs to be an extension of the latter – as I have listed them here. But thanks for the dates, Johnny.

    Having some exposure to those new testament books of the Bible which describe mainly some events from the Advent forwards in time, I do not recall specific contradictions in its teachings to the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, but again, perhaps I have not vetted that testament as thoroughly as the masses have done for our dear info source, Wikipedia.

    Or, yet, perhaps I too, am missing the point?

  10. Ron Britton Says:

    Charles:

    It isn’t a matter of whether Christianity contradicts the Declaration of Independence or our legal system. Christians claim that this is a Christian country, but they offer no proof. Instead, if you look at where our traditions come from, many of them trace directly to inventions of Islamic societies.

    Mosaic law says “don’t kill” and “don’t steal”, and that’s about it. Even those two things predate Judaism, so those principles didn’t come from there.

  11. call me whatever you want Says:

    The founders were definitely Christians. Sorry to burst your bubble.

    No matter how much you try to spin it, they were all, to varying extent, believers in a Christian God. Your attempts to turn the founders beliefs into Islamists were academically weak; no historical scholar will ever back you up on this new, bizarre theory you created out of thin air.

    Thomas Jefferson probably didn’t realize at the time that you’d be twisting his words and cherry picking phrases from Wikipedia to turn him into a Muslim, otherwise, he’d have schooled you. He believed in Jesus. Coping with reality is the first sign that you’ve matured..please let us all know when this happens for you.

    You might convince somebody of your arguments, but not anyone with a simple background in academics who has studied American history at any great length.

    You might sell this concept to some folks with IQs under 80, and maybe some kids, or crackheads. Good luck with that–people who are intellectually lazy or never went to college can be easily fooled.

    Most of our revolution was based on concepts from the French revolution, which was also based in Judeo-Christian principles. Anyone that doesn’t know that lacks a “fundamental” understanding of US history.

    The beautiful part? Jesus will forgive you.

  12. Ron Britton Says:

    Call You Illiterate:

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but I’m not trying to convince anyone that the founders were Muslim. Many were Christian. Some were deists. None were Muslim. Where in my article did I say they were? I didn’t. Learn to read.

    I didn’t realize at the time that you’d be twisting my words and cherry picking phrases from my article to turn it into something it’s not. Thomas Jefferson, or somebody, needs to school you in reading comprehension. Please let us all know when this happens for you.

  13. Ron Britton Says:

    P.S. The French Revolution occurred after the American Revolution. Anyone who doesn’t know that lacks a “fundamental” understanding of US history.

  14. call me whatever you want Says:

    Did some research, the academic kind, and discovered….The first mosque in the US was founded in 1930.

    Do you really believe that Thomas Jefferson prayed 5 times a day facing Mecca?

  15. call me whatever you want Says:

    From Wikipedia

    Presidency
    During the presidential campaign of 1800, the Federalists attacked Jefferson as an infidel, claiming that Jefferson’s intoxication with the religious and political extremism of the French Revolution disqualified him from public office. But Jefferson wrote at length on religion and many scholars agree with the claim that Jefferson was a deist, a common position held by intellectuals in the late 18th century, at least for much of his life.

    During his Presidency, Jefferson attended the weekly church services held in the House of Representatives. He also permitted church services in executive branch buildings throughout his administration, believing that Christianity was a prop for republican government.[53]

    “ [The Jefferson Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw.[54]

  16. call me whatever you want Says:

    You said: “Therefore, by using the fundies’ very own logic of citing the Declaration of Independence as proof, we are forced to conclude that America isn’t a Christian country, it’s a Muslim country!”

    This isn’t “a Muslim country.”

    What you call “Fundie logic” is a straw man you’ve set up to defeat day after day.

    Christianity isn’t the threat. People who are fundamentalists are not, I repeat, not Christians. If you were to stop using them for your understanding of Christianity, for just a calm moment, you would see what I mean. Actual Christians don’t care if they don’t teach Creationism in school as science. Actual Christians don’t try to convert you! Actual Christians don’t worry about your sins, they are worried about their own. Actual Christians help the poor and the sick. Actual Christians give money to charities and to people who need their help. Actual Christians get the idea that one of your non -believing writers pointed out, that we’re all people first.

  17. Ron Britton Says:

    Illiterate:

    You are colossally retarded, and just proving more so with every post.

    Rather than respond to my correction of your comment that claimed I said the founders were Muslim, you just reiterated the claim! Then you quote-mined Wikipedia to prove that Jefferson was a deist—which, by the way, directly contradicts your claim that all of the founders were Christian.

    THEN rather than correct your mistaken assertion that the American Revolution was inspired by the principles of the French Revolution (which occurred after the American Revolution!) you brag that Jefferson’s Revolutionary-war ideas were indeed inspired by the French Revolution!

    Oh, something is inspired, here, but it isn’t Jefferson. It’s your inspired lunacy!

    Anyway, in accordance with this site’s comment policy (available on the About page), you will only be allowed further comment privileges if those comments directly address the issues that you have already raised but failed to support. Once you have proven your claims that I stated that the founders were Muslim, then the restriction will be lifted.

  18. Ron Britton Says:

    Illiterate:

    You got that last comment in just under the wire, so I’ll let it through. You wrote:

    You said: “Therefore, by using the fundies’ very own logic of citing the Declaration of Independence as proof, we are forced to conclude that America isn’t a Christian country, it’s a Muslim country!”

    This isn’t “a Muslim country.”

    What you call “Fundie logic” is a straw man you’ve set up to defeat day after day.

    Negative. It is not a straw man at all. The inspiration for this article came from an actual fundie article I read and destroyed a few months ago. The fundie article was called “Judge Declares the Declaration of Independence Unconstitutional”. It claimed that because the Declaration mentions a creator, then we must be a Christian nation. That is the fundie logic I used against them here. If the concepts in the Declaration tell us what type of country this is, then I looked at those concepts and discovered they were Islamic.

    Then I went beyond that logic and showed how many of our legal principles were inherited from Islam.

    That is not a straw man. That is supporting a claim with evidence.

    Your final paragraph is just a bitchy little whine. It’s the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Sorry, chub. It doesn’t matter what you think an “actual Christian” is or does. Fundies are Christians. They’re yours. Your religion owns them and is responsible for their behavior. Behavior which, I might add, directly threatens the freedoms and liberties of other Americans. That behavior is what I am opposing on this web site.

  19. Brian Says:

    Great article, Ron. History is always able to provide fascinating insights into the past if we only have the willingness to look. I find it endlessly amusing how we attempt to scrub our history clean of anything unseemly so as not to cause our fragile nationalistic psyches any trauma. Looking at the past as it really was does not mean one loves his or her country any less than an overly-zealous super-patriot. It means you want your country to be as good as it can be, and this can only happen if we do not repeat the mistakes of the past or ignore the lessons to be found there.

    This was a very interesting way of deconstructing the whole “Christian nation” nonsense so many on the religious right blather on and on about. Ultimately, it does not matter what the founding fathers believed or did not believe, because the Constitution they gifted to us makes their own personal faiths irrelevant. Perhaps some of them were Christians, but they were at least smart enough to know not to give the government the power to regulate religion. These lunk-heads today screaming for the abolishment of church-state separation do not realize that it is this very principle which has allowed religion to flourish here, while in other developed countries it has withered and atrophied, a development for which I am envious of such places. Once religion gets its claws into our laws and statutes (more thoroughly than it already has, that is), it will only be a matter of time (probably a long, long time) before the masses realize the magnitude of the problem and join our more enlightened cousins across the pond and turn our backs on this farce for good. Or, at least I can foolishly hope…..

  20. Chuck Says:

    Thanks for such an enlightening post!

    I find your blog a wonderful source of information about fundies and their blunders. I bookmarked this post as it’s SUCH a good rebuttal to the whole “Christian nation” fallacy.

    Keep up the good work!

    Btw, I think you should let “Illiterate” post more. He’s fun! ;P

  21. JollyRoger Says:

    Jesusistanis like call me an addled tool HAVE TO cherry pick to “prove” their points. If they actually went back and read what Paine, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin had to say about Christianity, they’d have a genuine conundrum on their hands. So, of course, they won’t. They’ll go on “proving” their tripe with half-truths and unintelligible bullshit.

  22. Dana Hunter Says:

    Wow. Simply… wow. That was the most beautiful take-down of a logical fallicy I’ve ever seen.

    And the icing and the cherry are all of the spectacular morons who not only can’t read, but can’t comprehend simple timelines in history.

    Thank you for this. I thought CBEB’s “PZ Meyers: The Elvis Presley of Atheism?” was the single most beautiful thing that would be written this week. I stand corrected.

  23. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Other likely influences of Islamic law on English common law include the concepts of a passive judge, impartial judge, res judicata, the judge as a blank slate, individual self-definition, justice rather than morality, the law above the state, individualism, freedom of contract, privilege against self-incrimination, fairness over truth, individual autonomy, untrained and transitory decision making, overlap in testimonial and adjudicative tasks, appeal, dissent, day in court, prosecution for perjury, oral testimony, and the judge as a moderator, supervisor, announcer and enforcer rather than an adjudicator.

    Well, no wonder fundie Christians hate Muslims so much. The “God State” they are trying to create flies right in the face to those core Islamic Laws from way back when.

    Too bad most modern Islamic countries have long abandoned those beliefs in favor of religious fundamentalist forms of government. Hopefully we can prevent our fundies from doing to the USA than Islamic fundies did to Persia.

  24. DF Says:

    Very good article indeed, but your response to one of the commenters, I disagree with.

    “Your religion owns them and is responsible for their behavior.”

    A religion is no more then the belief in a higher power, and as such cannot be held responsible for a person’s actions, no more then a whole nation cannot be held accountable for the actions of one person.

    To say that christian ‘fundies’ (not really clear on what you mean with that term) are the responsibility of the Christian religion, is plain silly. Everyone has a brain for their own, and can make their own choices…. free will. One person is only responsible for oneself.

    Furthermore, the ideas and laws as in the Christian bible and the Islamic Koran, are largely similar if you look at the ones like Thou shalt not steal. The main idea of any religion, comes down to “treat others like you would want to be treated”. So one could state that the constitution is derived from any and all religions combined, not one specific religion.

    But then again, it’s just plain common sense, you dont have to be religious to realize we’re all best off if we’re just plain nice to eachother. So I’d say, the constitution is mostly based upon good, common sense :)

  25. Ron Britton Says:

    DF:

    The main idea of any religion, comes down to “treat others like you would want to be treated”. So one could state that the constitution is derived from any and all religions combined, not one specific religion.

    There is some truth to this statement. The fundies have been screaming quite loudly that we are a Christian country and that our laws are Biblically based. Well, I’ve never believed that argument. The Bible gives us little beyond don’t kill and steal.

    But the other way to look at it is which societies gave us our laws? If we are indeed Biblically based, then all we have to do is trace our laws backward in time to see where they come from. Oops! Many of them trace back to Islamic societies. Many of the great ideas that we cherish do not come from Christian societies, which were too busy Inquisiting and Crusading and oppressing during that period.

    On the other issue:

    A religion is no more then the belief in a higher power, and as such cannot be held responsible for a person’s actions, no more then a whole nation cannot be held accountable for the actions of one person.

    In the narrowest sense, yes, you are correct. But I am referring to the broader sense of public mores. Mores are a powerful method of social control.

    It is the responsibility of the mainstream Christians to reign in the extreme behavior of the fundamentalists. Mainstream Christians are the only ones who have any real influence upon fundies, so they are in the best position to exert influence. They’re all part of the same, larger community. The fact that fundies exist tarnishes the image of all Christians. The mainstream Christians have a stake in the issue.

    It’s exactly the same with the Muslims. There is very little condemnation of the radicals by the mainstream. As a result, most Americans think that all Muslims are violent jihadists. The moderate Muslims have to reign in the behavior of the radicals. It gives everybody a bad name.

    The community must police its own.

  26. Charles Vanden Hoek Says:

    Those in a mainstream (be they Christians or Muslims) are not responsible for reigning in fundamentalists/radicals. Fundamentalists and radicals are so described because they are not part of a mainstream. To propose otherwise seems inventive to the point of self-contradiction.

  27. Ron Britton Says:

    Charles:

    So you’re saying you are perfectly happy with the Muslim world’s reaction to 9/11?

  28. Einmaliger Says:

    This is really very, very clever.

  29. Charles Vanden Hoek Says:

    And the Muslim world’s reaction to 9/11 is exactly what, please?

  30. Ismael Says:

    Personally I think it’ll be fun when the fundies get bible law as the rule of the country. There is so much more to biblical law than, don’t kill or steal. Consider these fun bible laws:

    Anyone who dreams or prophesies anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)

    If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

    If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it’s inhabitants… even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)

    Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

    I just hope their is some advance notice before the bible law is enforced. I’d like to move before then.

  31. Ismael Says:

    Some more fun and happy bible law:

    The killing of homosexuals is condoned and encouraged in the wonderful laws of Leviticus. Leviticus 20:13 clearly states “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Well there you have it, Homosexuality is wrong, and they must pay the ultimate price… IN THE NAME OF GOD!!!

    Who else shouldn’t people do?

    Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

    Don’t have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

    Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

    Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

    Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) Have you ever done that?

    If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). I wonder if Dr. Laura would like that one to be enforced?

    If a man sleeps with his father’s wife… both him and his father’s wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

    If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

    If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16).

    If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be “cut off from their people” (Leviticus 20:18)

    Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

    If a priest’s daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)

    People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

    Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

    Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

    I wear blended fabrics and cut my hair, so off to hell I go.

  32. Parrotlover77 Says:

    The fact that they needed to be told not to hump animals or their mom or their wife’s mom is pretty crazy. But you know… they never said you couldn’t hump your own grandmother! Guess that’s okay…

  33. Mark Says:

    It is always interesting to see how far off track these comments can go from the original topic. Wikipedia should be not the primary scholarly source for any serious research (check out http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki). This is not to say that a historical fact is not a historical fact when indeed it is (American Revolution before the French). And yet with revolutions, it is hard to say when the movement toward revolution actual had begun, since most of what is defined for the time frame are the significant events. Which often come years after the murmuring of the people.

    These nuances which become the side issues with which become the jabbing and sparring points only detract from any real discussion. The real issue is whether or not Christians (or Fundies, if you consider them the same) realize that our country has been founded after and upon hundreds of years of experience taken from many different nations. Whether or not ALL the principles found in the founding documents are inherently Christian does not change ones faith (as some may seem to claim).

    The real purpose of the founding documents was to provide a state of liberty and freedom from oppression. Specifically religious oppression as was found in Europe at the time. Hence why the wording was intentionally connected to the religious purpose in the construction of the nation, being triggered, not by religious oppression, but by political and economic constraint (taxation w/o representation).

    Were the founding documents based on Christian principles? You bet. But exclusively? No. But does that inherently make them completely Muslim? No. For borrowing of the best method of doing something is common sense, which is what much more common in that day than this one.

    It is sad that name calling is still so readily used instead of civil discussion. So perhaps these thoughts from a Christian (Fundamentalist = the basic beliefs of the faith) will befall the same fate for the simple reason that “truth is truth.” Christ IS our faith not some piece of paper written not even 300 years ago. Christians should not use that as a proof of their faith, as much as they might want to (in agreement with the broadest sense of this post).

    My response to the content of this post is that it one cannot hold to this claim to the founding of a Muslim country. The purpose was not for a religious government but one in which the government would allow religion to be unhindered by its control. This is directly opposed to 1) a Muslim understanding of how a Muslim country should be created, and 2) the whole document in question (declaration of independence) is for the people and by the people, in and of itself refutes this claim. To remove the foundation of which a Muslim nation would be built upon (Islam) disproves your theory in and of itself. It cannot be a Muslim nation. While it may borrow from that philosophy of government (of which I have not studied in depth), borrowing a few secondary issues of regulation without adopting key tenets of that system does not equate a complete adoption of that philosophy.

  34. Mark Says:

    (Please excuse several typing/grammaical errors as this was a stumbled upon website in the wee hours of the morning after work)

  35. Ron Britton Says:

    Mark:

    Wikipedia should be not the primary scholarly source for any serious research

    A blog is not serious research. Therefore, Wikipedia is completely appropriate. I have also gone on record several times previously about the limitations of this source.

    The real issue is whether or not Christians (or Fundies, if you consider them the same)

    I never claimed they were the same. Fundies are an extremist subset of Christianity.

    Were the founding documents based on Christian principles? You bet.

    No. I wouldn’t make that bet.

    But exclusively? No.

    I said in the article that there may be Christian principles in there. I’m still trying to figure out what they are, though. Nobody has been able to tell me which principles are exclusively Christian. This article pointed out many concepts that were exclusively Muslim.

    …“truth is truth.” Christ IS our faith not some piece of paper written not even 300 years ago.

    That is not our truth. It may be your truth, but not mine. This is not a Christian country. It is populated largely by Christians, but that does not make it Christian.

    My response to the content of this post is that it one cannot hold to this claim to the founding of a Muslim country.

    I am not claiming that this is a Muslim country. You misread the article. I am saying that it is the Christians who are claiming this is a Muslim country. Unintentionally claiming, of course. They are the ones who use the Declaration of Independence as proof. I am merely following their logic. If the principles set forth in that document tell us that this country was founded upon the principles of a religion, then we look to see which religion those principles came from.

  36. Mark Says:

    Just to clarify when you say…

    “I never claimed they were the same. Fundies are an extremist subset of Christianity.”

    What you refer to in other posts (Hal Lindsey) as “Fundies” is actually a further extreme division of Fundamentalism which does not perform a proper exegetical hermeneutic in applying Scripture. Just to make a distinction…

  37. Scion Says:

    I’m not a fundamentalist (or even religious at all) but I have to comment that the article you source is extremely misleading, historically.

    The core issue at hand, is that Islam is an Abrahamic faith, and the core of the specific ‘unalienable rights’ mentioned in the (uncited) Fiqh are based off of the laws passed down by Moses.

    More specifically it is a wholesale lie, because there is no Fiqh that specificies anyone has rights based on being ‘human’. People have unalienable rights as Believers. Non-believers, are kaffir. All ‘humans’ have unalienable rights, but non-Muslims are, under Sharia, not human.

    This is the common theme in Mosaic Law. It is social construct, not unalienable right, and to list Sharia as the inception of that concept is fallacious. Two millenia before there was any Sharia, Babylonian rulers were held under specific property laws that denied them the ability to just steal land from merchants, traders and private citizens. They also had a rudimentary concept of due process that guaranteed the right to present evidence to prove your innocence. This sets a precedent that rulers are beholden to laws in regards to the upholding of the rights of their subjects, long before Sharia (and probably at about the same time as Mosaic Law and in the same corner of the world).

    There is an attempt on someone’s behalf to white wash history on the behalf of Islam. You will see a massive article on how Sharia influenced law around the globe, but you will not see articles on the influence of Brehonic law around the world, or any other ancient, pre-Islamic codes on wikipedia.

    It also basically asserts that the marketplace of ideas only trades in one direction except for a few limited examples. Islam influences others, but nothing influences it, as it is the uncreated word of God and cannot be changed.

    That historically, is just not true. Wikipedia reports the ‘truth’ of Islamic history from the mouths of Muslim fundamentalists and propagandists.

    There have been influences from Islam to the rest of the world, including the western world (including many medieval interpretations of Christianity such as the ‘Fallen Angel’ myth that is in the Quran, but not the Bible) but in terms of jurisprudence, very little has flowed from Islam to the west.

    The assertion that such things as impartial judges originate in Islam is wholly ridiculous. Especially considering that Islam, at its core adopts a theological construct of ritual purity. That which is pure is innocent, and that which is impure is guilty. This is the (as mentioned by another poster) divide between Justice and Morality.

    In Western ideology, founded in Greco-Roman ideology, not Christian, is that the opposite of Justice is Injustice. In Islam, the Justice based jurisprudence states that Justice is the opposite of Immorality. Immorality is based on ritual purity and following the Sunnah which gaurantees this purity.

    The only thing that could be remotely similar to ‘inalienable rights’ in Sharia, is that the core laws are unchangeable because they are divine and not mortal in nature. However, that concept isn’t new to Islam. Essentially every ancient religion (ironically arguably with the exception of Christianity, which is predominantly spiritually oriented when seperated from the OT) is geopolitical in nature. Religion, law, culture were all one and the same, and theocracy was the norm not the exception. Theocracy doesn’t equate to inalienable rights however.

    I also fully reject that Individualism comes from Islam as well. The Quran and Hadith are very clear that the Muslim lives for the sake of the Ummah and the Ummah does not exist to serve the Muslim. It is a State first mentality; entirely Collectivist. It guarantess some property rights, but it also mandates a flat tax on income, property, et ceterra, that isn’t only used for public welfare but for the strenghtening of the Ummah militarily and financially for the spread of Islam into infidel lands.

    This is OT, but I don’t think that “Fundamentalist” is even a good term to apply to the brand of Christianity you are attacking on your blog. Fundamentalism usually describes a form of regressive or ultra-orthodox Christianity, and the political activist Evangelicals aren’t really fundamentalist at all.

    Fundamentalist Christians would be something closer to the Amish (although not entirely). They give Ceasar his due, and that is it. Fundamentalist Christianity would be almost whole spiritual aesceticism.

  38. Ron Britton Says:

    Scion:

    The point of the article is that Christians have very little they can point to in order to support their claims that this country is founded upon Christian principles. The title of the article is ironic, not literal.

  39. Shawn Says:

    Ron,
    Great Article!! I saw the sarcasm and irony in the article and find it almost funny that people seem to completely miss the point of you using ones (Fundies) argument to disprove the argument as a whole. Well done!

  40. Sarah Says:

    Oh wow…I wonder just how many more people will take this article at title value before the year ends? XD

  41. Last Hussar Says:

    The 12 man jury system actually has its English law roots in Anglo-Saxon times. Just another example of parallel thinking in world cultures. If you looked hard enough you could probably find many of those principles in the DofI in Hinduism and Sikhism- Human societies tend to be big on not killing members. So perhaps teh US is a Hindi state!

  42. Jacob Says:

    Interesting; what I find to be ironic is how you’re falling for the same ambigious nonsense the christians immediately think when they see ‘creator’ and ‘nature’s god’ in the Declaration of Independence.

    The difference is you’re applying this same method of selective interpretation to John Locke and his teacher. Being a professor of Arabic Studies does not mean you are pro-islamic, a muslim, or even influenced by islamic ideas. Thomas Jefferson also read the quran, so what? I’ve read every major religious text, does that mean I’m a christo-hindu-janist-orthodox-shinto-islamo-jew? Of course not, that’s just you looking into something and seeing what you want to see. You leave no room for alternative theories; is it impossible to say that those ideas could have come from a reactionary morality to world events, internal struggles, and just common sense? Would it be insane to say that those founding fathers were mostly deists?

    Also you should do some proper research of history. Muslims enslaved millions of people from Africa, Europe, to Asia with scriptural backing for over 1000 years. They were doing it long before European colonialism (or American slavery) even existed. American trading vessels were also attacked in the Mediterranean in 1783 by Berber muslim pirates, and these attacks were unprovoked. Muslims largely treated non-believers with contempt, social-ostricism, heavy taxing, exiling, murder, rape, and slavery most of the time, and the times they weren’t doing this was when they were threatened by external powers. Why am I mentioning all this? Well you’re arguing this from a point of morality and islam as an influence, yet this seems hardly possible.

    In conclusion; the founding fathers were well-read on other religions, and yes they did use vague wording for a reason (also nature’s god also can encompass pantheists, who also existed during the age of enlightenment), because in most parts of the world people were attacked and persecuted for holding differing beliefs. In order to make a truely secular and free document, it didn’t take a great deal of brain power to see that allowing freedom for all worshippers might ensure peace.

  43. Jacob Says:

    I forgot to also mention this;

    Yes I agree the christian fundamentalists are distorting history to make it seem like democracy is a christian idea, but they ignore how people like Abraham Lincoln were accused of witchcraft and heresy in their times, and that the earliest examples of democracy in practice date back to the pagan Greeks and Romans (although that also doesn’t mean democracy is pagan either).

    In contrast to this, however, saying that islam had some hand in what went in 1776 in America is just swinging the other way and appeasing to fundamentalist muslims who buy that argument without looking at alternative theories or evidence. They are creating a similar scene of ahistorical preaching and distortion as the christians, and some even go as far as claiming that muslims found The New World in the 8-9th centuries before Columbus did. If this were an unbiased and neutral paper, you should have mentioned the many accounts.

    Also the statement that most of English law comes from islam is also ahistorical and I have seen no evidence for this. Wikipedia isn’t the divine all-knowing truth of history, as anyone can go on there are edit/vandalise articles and twist them however they like. It’s so easy to claim how the Magna Carta or Declaration of Independence can somehow be influenced by islam, you could say it was also influenced by hindu vedas, or shinto scriptures, etc… you can draw all the conclusions and connections you like, but what counts at the end of the day is direct evidence that connects the dots. Even then, why is it that religions are the ones getting all the credit on who influenced morality? That notion itself should be the first thing examined.

  44. Ron Britton Says:

    Jacob:

    It’s fascinating how you simultaneously get the point of this article and miss the point of this article.

  45. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Jacob is today’s winner of the Entirely Missing the Point of an Article On The Internets Award. Congratulations!

  46. Jeff Says:

    Come on people, the point is, our laws can be trace back to before Christianity and from many other religions (amongst other governing doctrines) with the purpose of creating a completely secular country. The founding fathers had enough wisdom/insight to agree that thier views (in regards to religion)were not the only correct views, and that ALL religions should be able to prosper.

  47. The Baldchemist Says:

    Your laws cannot be traced back before Christianity. Christianity has only been in Europe and Britain in particular for around 1000 years.
    There is no way on earth that Islam has ever been the foundation of law in Britain.
    Now, unfortunately I haven’t time to get down and dirty just now but will get back with some enlightenment regarding heritage and religions unfortunate roll.
    Nice article tough. I love a bit of religious controversy. Lets talk soon.

  48. Parrotlover77 Says:

    There is no way on earth that Islam has ever been the foundation of law in Britain.

    The Baldchemist is today’s winner of the Entirely Missing the Point of an Article On The Internets Award. Congratulations!

  49. al Says:

    Puh—leeeeze.
    Blathering foolishness.
    All the tenets of English common law, and the Declaration, and the Constitution are found first in the laws of the Roman Republic, evolving to fruition with the enlightenment, and nought
    to do with Christianity or Islam, two of the most oppressive religions in the history of the cosmos, both religions of which NEVER believed that ANYONE had ANY rights accept those their monster of a God arbitrarily dispensed.The philosophy of these religions, both, is a philosophy of slavery not of freedom, a philosophy of tyranny, not of equality, a philosophy of violent
    repression not evolution and growth.
    “Nature’s God” is not Allah nor Jehovah. It is just that “nature’s God”. The authors of these documents were Deists who saw evidence of God in nature and not in some book.
    Why are you arguing which religion we are beholden to. Goodness, lets dispense with all three religions of the book, they all represent nothing but hatred, repression and oppression.
    To claim, or want to be run by either of these religions, or their abusive parent, Judaism, is dangerous foolishness.
    I don’t want a nation of God…I want that a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

  50. Ron Britton Says:

    Al:

    Please read all of the above comments. It should clarify matters.

  51. Waqas Says:

    @ al
    “All the tenets of English common law, and the Declaration, and the Constitution are found first in the laws of the Roman Republic, evolving to fruition with the enlightenment, and nought to do with Christianity or Islam”

    Really nought to do with Islam? Can you quote a reference that any of these rights were available in the laws of Roman Republic or any other Republic predating Islamic Sharia?

    “In the field of human rights, early Islamic jurists introduced a number of advanced legal concepts before the 12th century which anticipated similar modern concepts in the field.[64] These included the notions of the charitable trust and the trusteeship of property; the notion of brotherhood and social solidarity; the notions of human dignity and the dignity of labour; the notion of an ideal law; the condemnation of antisocial behavior; the presumption of innocence; the notion of “bidding unto good” (assistance to those in distress); and the notions of sharing, caring, universalism, fair industrial relations, fair contract, commercial integrity, freedom from usury, women’s rights, privacy, abuse of rights, juristic personality, individual freedom, equality before the law, legal representation, non-retroactivity, supremacy of the law, judicial independence, judicial impartiality, limited sovereignty, tolerance, and democratic participation. Many of these concepts were adopted in medieval Europe through contacts with Islamic Spain and the Emirate of Sicily, and through the Crusades and the Latin translations of the 12th century.” (pp. 129-32 Weeramantry, Judge Christopher G. (1997), Justice Without Frontiers: Furthering Human Rights, Brill Publishers, ISBN 9041102418)

    @Scion:

    “the ‘Fallen Angel’ myth that is in the Quran, but not the Bible”
    Interestingly you are telling the opposite of what is true, the idea of Fallen Angel is in the Bible (Isaiah 14:12-15), in the Quran the Satin is a Fallen Jinn, not a Fallen Angel (Quran 2:34; 7:12; 15:27; 55:15).

    “The assertion that such things as impartial judges originate in Islam is wholly ridiculous.”

    The precursor to the English jury trial was the Lafif trial in classical Maliki jurisprudence, which was developed between the 8th and 11th centuries in North Africa and Islamic Sicily, and shares a number of similarities with the later jury trials in English common law. Like the English jury, the Islamic Lafif was a body of twelve members drawn from the neighbourhood and sworn to tell the truth, who were bound to give a unanimous verdict, about matters “which they had personally seen or heard, binding on the judge, to settle the truth concerning facts in a case, between ordinary people, and obtained as of right by the plaintiff.” The only characteristic of the English jury which the Islamic Lafif lacked was the “judicial writ directing the jury to be summoned and directing the bailiff to hear its recognition.” According to Professor John Makdisi, “no other institution in any legal institution studied to date shares all of these characteristics with the English jury.” It is thus likely that the concept of the Lafif may have been introduced to England by the Normans and then evolved into the modern English jury.[2] However, the hearing of trials before a body of citizens may have existed in courts before the Norman conquest.

    The Waqf in Islamic law, which developed during the 7th-9th centuries, bears a notable resemblance to the trusts in the English trust law.[23] For example, every Waqf was required to have a waqif (founder), mutawillis (trustee), qadi (judge) and beneficiaries.[24] Under both a Waqf and a trust, “property is reserved, and its usufruct appropriated, for the benefit of specific individuals, or for a general charitable purpose; the corpus becomes inalienable; estates for life in favor of successive beneficiaries cannot be created” and “without regard to the law of inheritance or the rights of the heirs; and continuity is secured by the successive appointment of trustees or mutawillis.”[25] The trust law developed in England at the time of the Crusades, during the 12th and 13th centuries, was introduced by Crusaders who may have been influenced by the Waqf institutions they came across in the Middle East.[26][27] Dr. Paul Brand also notes parallels between the Waqf and the trusts used to establish Merton College by Walter de Merton, who had connections with the Knights Templar. Brand also points out, however, that the Knights Templar were primarily concerned with fighting the Muslims rather than learning from them, making it less likely that they had knowledge of Muslim legal institutions.[20]

    [20] Mukul Devichand (24 September 2008). “Is English law related to Muslim law? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7631388.stm

    [23-27] Gaudiosi, Monica M. (April 1988), “The Influence of the Islamic Law of Waqf on the Development of the Trust in England: The Case of Merton College”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 136 (4): 1231–1261, doi:10.2307/3312162

    The precursor to the English assize of novel disseisin was the Islamic Istihqaq, an action “for the recovery of usurped land”, in contrast to the previous Roman law which “emphasized possession in resolving such disputes.” The “assize of novel disseisin broke with this tradition and emphasized ownership, as is found in the Islamic law of Istihqaq.”[28] Islamic law also introduced the notion of allowing an accused suspect or defendant to have an agent or lawyer, known as a wakil, handle his/her defense. This was in contrast to early English common law, which “used lawyers to prosecute but the accused were left to handle their defense themselves.” The English Parliament did not allow those accused of treason the right to retain lawyers until 1695, and for those accused of other felonies until 1836.[29]

    [2]: Makdisi, John A. (June 1999), “The Islamic Origins of the Common Law”, North Carolina Law Review 77 (5): 1635–1739

    [28]: Jackson, Sherman (January 1995), “Review: Islamic Law and Jurisprudence: Studies in Honor of Farhat J. Ziadeh by Nicholas Heer Sherman Jackson”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 54 (1): 68–9, doi:10.1086/373733
    [29]: pp. 167-8 Badr, Gamal Moursi (Winter 1984), “Islamic Criminal Justice”, The American Journal of Comparative Law 32 (1): 167–169, doi:10.2307/840274

    “Wikipedia reports the ‘truth’ of Islamic history from the mouths of Muslim fundamentalists and propagandists.”

    Really? The above quotes from Wikipedia are from Judge Christopher G Weeramantry, Mukul Devichand, Monica M. Gaudiosi, John A. Makdisi, Nicholas Heer Sherman Jackson and Gamal Moursi, they are all Muslim fundamentalists and propagandists and their books are packs of lies and the journals that printed their work are actually tabloids.

  52. Abarel Says:

    Just some examples of what our wonderful founding fathers said about religion. From this website:
    http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm
    “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.” – Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

    Every man “ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” – George Washington (Letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789)

    “Question with boldness even the existence of a god.” – Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)

    “When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” – Benjamin Franklin (from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780;)

    I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of… Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

    “Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” – Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363.)

    “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” – James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)

    “Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?” – John Adams

    “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” – James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” – (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 – signed by President John Adams.)

    Also see Treaty of Tripoli

    “As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith.” – Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776.)

    “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations.” – Patrick Henry

    “That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.” – Patrick Henry (Virginia Bill of Rights, June 12, 1776.)

    From my reading: only Patrick Henry seems to be a “true christian.”

  53. adam kippes Says:

    someone said:

    The main idea of any religion, comes down to “treat others like you would want to be treated”. So one could state that the constitution is derived from any and all religions combined, not one specific religion.

    after reading “the selfish gene”, i would argue that “treat others like you would want to be treated” is the evolutionary strategy humans adopted to become the highly successful organisms we are.

    i view religion as the structures of thought that allow humans to override that core impulse and commit the intraspecies atrocities that fill our recorded past.

  54. Parrotlover77 Says:

    The main idea of any religion, comes down to “treat others like you would want to be treated”. So one could state that the constitution is derived from any and all religions combined, not one specific religion.

    Except the gays and brown people, of course!

    i view religion as the structures of thought that allow humans to override that core impulse and commit the intraspecies atrocities that fill our recorded past.

    That’s a bold statement considering how many wars in human history (including right now in the present) are happening largely based on religious disagreements.

  55. Andrew Mutabeli Says:

    Obviously, you either one of the Jihadist or moron musliums. Why don’t you, Obama and those Crazy moron musliums leaves us alone. You should go back to where you came from.

    The truth is you are an idiot moron. You need more schooling than anything elese – Your arguments are baseless and stupidity. This world will be better place without the MUSLIUMS on our FACES. Muslium religion has been a religion of VIOLENCE since it’s inception by Mohammand.

    Mohammand was Con and false prophet who stole most of the ideas from the conguered people in India and other parts of Asia including Africa.

    Muslium is the worst religion that is based on false teaching in the world.

  56. Syldoran Says:

    Rather than argue that last comment, I will simply nitpick in order to amuse myself for a moment:

    “Idiot moron” is a bit redundant.

    Muslium?

    Conguered?

    “Elese” sounds like a name.

    Should be “Since ITS” inception. Also should be “baseless and STUPID” in order to maintain the correct sentence structure and have the adjectives agree with the noun.

    I think you mean “a con artist” rather than just “con.”

    And since when has Africa ever been a part of Asia?

    My god.

  57. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Lol, I think that was a troll. It was almost too perfect of a fundie stereotype.

  58. Syldoran Says:

    Perhaps. I stopped caring some time ago. Half the websites I go to have real people that are just as bad as trolls, so I think I lost my ability and desire to differentiate.

  59. Jeff Eyges Says:

    “Idiot moron” is a bit redundant.

    Perhaps an “idiot moron” is stupider than a regular moron.

  60. TheRealistMom Says:

    Have I mentioned just how much I love my kid? (Yes Syldoran, I love embarrassing you too, but still- I think I got a smart one.)

  61. OtherRob Says:

    Perhaps and idiot moron is something like a Lt. Colonel.

  62. Parrotlover77 Says:

    How cute! We have another family on BoF. Thankfully this time they are on the side of reality.

  63. Syldoran Says:

    Oh geez.

  64. S. Says:

    would someone please help me for a minute and remind me why I thought of this game??? J/J,great post :-)

    Cherry-O Board Game – Hi Ho Cherry-O Game Parker Brothers Hasbro Games. Classic for over 30 years. Be the first to pick your cherry tree clean.