Wednesday, February 20, 2008
She also goes around saying "no more buffets", which is what my husband and I say after we end up at the GC or CiCi's.
We gotta stop eating out!
Some other sayings:
Dinner cookie - treats on the kitchen island, whether eaten after dinner or not. I sometimes eat a cookie or just a little something sweet after dinner, so I guess she put a name on it.
Daddy's fixing his credit- she says when my husband shreds old bills and credit card offers.
Open this for Rashad- she says when she need help opening one of Rashad's toys that she has no intention of letting him play with. It was cuter when he was way too young for toys. He's just getting to an age where he can sit up and play, so we are going to have fun learning to share...
Baby Sue wants some Craisins- Sometimes her baby doll takes on her own personality...
Have a good one- She came out with that as we were leaving her grandparents. She was between and year and 18 months, just starting to put sentences together, so it was really really funny and cute. And unexpected. Bye-bye, yes; but have a good one?
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Here is the text; my response follows:
CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?
This is very interesting! We all need to read it from start
to finish......... and send it on to anyone who will read it.
Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. . .. . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.
Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran).
Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. . . . Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.
They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.
* * * Call it what you wish; it's still the truth.
* * * You had better believe it.
* * * The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our President?
You HAVE to be kidding?! Wake up America!
Obama even says if he wins the election, he will
Absolutely Muslims can be good Americans. The rebuttal is in the "facts on the ground". Talk to the Muslims you know.
In our Declaration of Independence—“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.”
This is a good link for those who don’t know much about Islam…
When you point to bad Muslims, you will no doubt name various well known terrorists. The fact is that the 9/11 hijackers were in a bar drinking before their crime, which is against Islam and they killed innocents, also against Islam. The evil Muslims this uses to generalize about all Muslims are extremists who aren't following the Quran. They follow some tenets and modify others to suit their purposes.
About Barak Obama- First of all, he’s Christian. Second of all, so what if he wasn’t? The president’s allegiance is to the US and he vows to uphold our laws, not convert us all to his religion (regardless of the book he swears upon). If a Muslim swore on a Bible, that wouldn’t make much sense as it has some things he doesn’t believe (but a lot he does)…but again, Obama’s a CHRISTIAN and has NOT said at any time he will swear on a Quran. (The guy who used Jefferson’s Quran for swearing in was Keith Ellison, Congressman)
See this for more rumors proven false about Obama:
The first three things in the list say or imply that there are theological, religious, scriptural and spiritual requirements to being an American. That is ludicrous. Shall we evict atheists and all who don’t believe as this person, too? They wouldn't meet these requirements at all. The "intellectual" statement also deals with religion. Only Christians can be good Americans? That is what this implies here, and that is wrong and does not promote freedom of religion or expression, unlike our country’s founding documents.
Being an American is simply to be a citizen of the US. Being a good American is subjective. You believe good is Chrisitan, so no, a Muslim American is not going to be a Christian American. Both Christians and Muslims have the freedom to practice their religions in this country. That is one of the virtues of this country.
Now for the other "qualifications" listed:
Geographically- This one is funny. Kind of invokes a thought police picture in my mind. Just because they pray toward Mecca doesn’t mean their allegiance is to Mecca; that isn’t what they are taught, either. If I think about a foreign country five times a day, I myself am no less American!
Socially- They are not forbidden from making friends with Christians and Jews (people of the book, according to the Quran).
Politically- you are quoting extremists as I have said. This does not represent Islam itself or what the majority of Muslims believe.
A thing about Israel, though- they DO need to be stopped from committing collective punishment, international law violations and humanitarian atrocities and the US should not send them any more money until they behave. There won’t be peace til there’s justice in the region.
Only extremists and fanatics want the destruction of the US and Israel, not the majority of Muslims, especially ones that live here.
Not all Muslims have or are encouraged to have 4 wives. They are only permitted to have more than one if they can equally provide for all and it is not encouraged nor is it mandatory. On beating… see these links.
Philosophically-this makes no sense. Why would any religion promote freedom of religion? Christianity doesn't (Jn14:6); (and I agree with that as well because I am Christian!).
Freedom of Expression- http://www.crescentlife.com/spirituality/freedom_of_expression.htm
Never called love or Heavenly Father- Allah is called love in the Quran, see http://www.faizani.com/articles/names.html, not that it matters to me since I am a Christian and follow the Bible and I love all people and hate the sin.
More thoughts on our "Christian nation":
As far as electing people who put God into every public thing... of course I think that is good on one level (as a Christian myself), but perhaps we should realistically be more in favor of freedom of religion in case someone is in power who doesn't believe as we do? If what religion the president is starts to matter in our daily lives, we have a problem, since not many members of the church run for office. That would be more of a theocracy, not democracy anyway. Chances are, if a president started putting his take on God in schools, etc, the members of the church would not be well represented and we'd be listening to a bunch of stuff that is considered "Christian", but that is totally false.
About the intent of the first Americans--"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," states the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. This document was ratified by Congress without much debate or contention and stands today as a reminder of the founding fathers' intentions.
It seems some were Christians, they look favorably onreligion in general, but separation of church and state was emphasized. I think that's a good principle for a state. (A Christian should act according to scripture, a state doesn't have that obligation or else Jesus would have come down hard on the Roman government and other powers of his time instead of teaching people.) That way, all can choose the set of beliefs they follow, like you or I chose to follow Christ. You can't legislate someone into heaven or force them to become a Christian. It is a Christians responsibility to put the Word out there, not the State's as I see it. If we leave it to the state, it won't be done or won't be done right. I don't think God expects us to have Christian governments throughout the world, as salvation is based on what one person does, not whole nations. He would have installed Christians as leaders in the world at that time, replaced the Roman ones who persecuted Christians had he wanted Christian leaders. The only way to have true Christian leaders is to hope/work that people are added to the church. I think it's backwards to elect Christian (or pseudoChristian) leaders in hopes that all will be added to the Lord's body.
I hope that makes a little sense. It's my 2 cents anyway.
It's election season. Let the debates begin!
Thursday, February 7, 2008
I agree that the results and candidates that emerge are pretty predictable. I personally would like to see more choices. Two parties aren't enough. The two democratic candidates are too polished, too superstar for lack of a better way to describe it. They are clearly pandering to special interests even if they don't take money from all or many of them. They have to do it to get elected.
The illusion of choice in US elections: Does it herald the dissolution of these United States of America?
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Dov Weisglass, explained that
"the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet but not to make them die of hunger."
This says so many things. This guy is full of ...well ...garbage. First, to have Weisglass saying this and that the disengagement from Gaza was to be political formaldehyde proves that Washington doesn't really listen (or care?) what Israel says/stands for. That's good because maybe we don't actually support apartheid and collective punishment, etc. That's bad because we are funding these horrible things and tacitly supporting them so that our elected officials can keep their grip on power, be it the presidency or congressional seat. Second, we have from the horse's mouth what Israel's intent really is. They don't hide their sinister motives, yet we in the US tend to cloud these issues in order to make Israel sound righteous and downtrodden so that we are justified in supporting them.
Maybe both things come down to the influence of the AIPAC, the Israel lobby, in the US or perhaps Christian Zionists. The latter are interesting. I have read and chatted online with regards them. I can tell you where they draw from the Bible and what their reasoning is for the most part, and I can tell you it's not Biblical and doesn't make a lick of sense.
Reading that quote just made my blood boil. Why do we Americans continue to think Israel has any real interest or intent in helping us? Saying "they are the only democracy in the Middle East" may be soup for the neoconservative soul, but isn't an answer. It doesn't justify the collective punishment they dish out and roadblock to peace they have become. It doesn't justify the illegal acts, extra-judicial assassinations, imprisonments on false or no charges, fake trials, "mistakes" that can either only be carefully planned or the result of an extremely careless, inefficient, inexperienced, inhumane military machine. Fire from homemade rockets which rarely does any real damage is not grounds for starving an entire population, imprisoning them in their homes, and knocking out power so they are in the dark in winter--especially for a military as well-funded and equipped and trained as they are. It is more like ethnic cleansing than a response to "provocation" (...then there's who provoked whom...).