http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2011/11/14/haslam-refuses-to-rebuke-womick-for-anti-muslim-talk Comments On: Haslam Refuses to Rebuke Womick for Anti-Muslim Talk by Jeff Woods en-us Copyright 2013 Nashville Scene. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Nashville Scene readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Nashville Scene. wil@desert.net (Nashville Scene Webmaster) Sat, 18 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Sat, 18 May 2013 23:15:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
"Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open."

Wait nevermind, that is from the Holy Bible (Hosea 13:16).
Posted by jdilla127]]> Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:24:51 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by davidlongfellow]]> Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:52:44 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Rebecca Bynum]]> Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:25:04 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by xray]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:25:57 -0600 Nashville Scene
Womick -- and others, I suppose -- are concerned about the relatively small number of Muslims in our military at present. Americans leap to constitutional protections in their denunciations of such speech, but this is done from the safety and security of current population numbers and the makeup of our country (which is drastically changing).

To those quick to denounce Womick, etc., I posed a question: Can there be too many Muslims in our military and in our country?
Posted by Donna Locke]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:34:41 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by greycelt]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:27:18 -0600 Nashville Scene
The question of the meaning of "people" was settled by the process of Constitutional Amendment, not reinterpreting the meaning of the word to the Framers. And, in point of fact, one of the arguments of abolitionists and suffragettes was that prohibitions on full citizenship for blacks and women violated the Constitution exactly because "people" meant all citizens.
Posted by Mark Rogers]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:40:39 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by xray]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:30:44 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by xray]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:02:33 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Nothing Nothing]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:55:25 -0600 Nashville Scene
Sorry, Mark. I know you would love to stray off into one of your irrelevant red herrings.
Posted by Perry Aubric]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:21:41 -0600 Nashville Scene
Article I, Section 2:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States"

As many "people" had no say in chosing their representative 230 years ago, clearly the meaning of the world "people" has changed in meaning.
Posted by Ben]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:54:05 -0600 Nashville Scene
Nicely said. I could not agree with you more on the Constitutional issue.
Posted by Mark Rogers]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:43:12 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Min]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:43:00 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Perry Aubric]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:11:47 -0600 Nashville Scene
You either support the First Amendment, or you don't.
Posted by Min]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:01:39 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by plumpynut]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:47:40 -0600 Nashville Scene
Here is what Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America syas about this subject (you can look it up, too):

"...but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States."

Pretty damn clear. Words like "ever" and "any" have not changed in meaning.
Posted by Perry Aubric]]> Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:33:52 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Donna Locke]]> Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:31:22 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by xray]]> Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:08:01 -0600 Nashville Scene
"Are we moving away then from the teachings of the Qu'ran to the actions of those who are Muslims?"

No. You argued that offensive war was not Koranic.
Posted by Mark Rogers]]> Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:59:21 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Donna Locke]]> Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:57:14 -0600 Nashville Scene
Are we moving away then from the teachings of the Qu'ran to the actions of those who are Muslims?

There are current Christian terror groups, use the googles.

Are we on the the one hand to blame the religion, its teachings etc. for the actions of its followers, and then when presented with theological evidence that the your conclusion is false, then on the other hand blame the religion for the actions of those who claim to be Muslims?

If you take only anecdotal evidence, like what you see on the news, what is fed to you by the Islamaphobes etc, you will always come to the same conclustion. However, if you recognize that the evidence is in fact ancedotal, and is creating for you a generalization, then perhaps you will strive to seek the truth thru those who actually study, those who do extensive scientific research, extensive scientific polling etc. And frankly, if you just open your mind to the fact that there are 1.5 Billion Muslims, that is 1 million million Muslims, that this extremely small set of data you get from Fox news, Rush limbaugh etc, is...meaningless.

If you want to get into a fight about which religion has killed more, which religion has done this and that...well...we'll be here all month.

Why don't you look this up: Which Muslim army went to Indonesia?
Posted by Ray Allen]]> Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:31:11 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Donna Locke]]> Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:23:14 -0600 Nashville Scene
Fun fact, the number one cause of death for pregnant women in the United States is murder. Misogyny is often justified via religion, but it's not as if Muslims are the only ones playing that particular game.
Posted by Ashley Spurgeon]]> Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:14:37 -0600 Nashville Scene