The Myth Of Jefferson's Koran

Allah thinks Ellison's shrewd political move of taking his private oath on a Thomas Jefferson owned copy of the Koran is checkmate. But not so fast. I see Allah has it in an update. But let's look at even more of the picture, while not forgetting that Jefferson owned a slave or two, as well. Is Ellison planing on swearing in on one of them, too? And if so, what religion do you think he or she would be?

Jefferson purchased the Koran as a student prior to his even taking the bar exam and after reading another book said to be prejudiced against Islam. And the notion I suspect you'll hear repeated by the MSM, that Jefferson used the Koran to gain insight into the law, appears to be pure academic speculation with a certain anti-theist sounding slant.

The article relates the interest shown by former U.S. president Thomas Jefferson in studying Islam and his reading of the Koran. On Jefferson's visit to the printing office of the Virginia Gazette in the autumn of 1765, he purchased a copy of the Qur'an, specifically, George Sale's English translation, The Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mohammed. Jefferson's purchase of the Qur'an at the time may have been inspired by his legal studies, too. The interest in natural law he developed as a student encouraged him to pursue his readings in the area as widely as possible. The standard work in the field, Frieherr von Pufendorf's Of the Law and Nature and Nations, gave readers an almost endless number of possible references to track down and thus offered Jefferson an excellent guide to further reading. Though Pufendorf's work reflects a prejudice against Islam characteristic of the time in which it was written, he nonetheless cited precedent from the Qur'an in several instances. Jefferson acquired his Qur'an not long after the injustice of the Stamp Act had forced him to question seriously the heritage of English constitutional law and to seek ultimate answers in the ideas of natural law and natural rights. Reading the Qur'an also let him continue studying the history of religion. Entries he made in his literary commonplace book about the same time he purchased Sale's Koran show that he was seeking to reconcile contradictions between history and scripture that were becoming increasingly apparent to him.

The reality is, as Allah now points out and I had planned to post via NRO, is that Jefferson waged war against Islam ... long after having read their book. And he went against his prior beliefs of a small coastal-restricted Navy in doing so.

Even after it became commonplace for the pirate captains or their crew to be renegade Europeans, it was essential that these former Christians “turn Turk” and convert to Islam before they could be accorded the honor of engagement in al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea.

In fact, the peoples of Barbary continued to consider the pirates as holy warriors even after the Barbary rulers began to allow non-religious commitments to command their strategic use of piracy. The changes that the religious institution of piracy underwent were natural, if pathological. Just as the concept of jihad is invoked by Muslim terrorists today to legitimize suicide bombings of noncombatants for political gain, so too al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, served as the cornerstone of the Barbary states’ interaction with Christendom.

As Jefferson reported to the Continental Congress:

These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Comments

[Robert]

I hope you don't make this much of a stink (see mountains out of molehills) when I use "What's the Matter with Kansas?" at my swearing-in ceremony.

Future Senator Robert

[Thomas]

It's not as if he was taking an oath of fealty to Ibn Saud. He's vowing to protect the constitution, etc. It just happens that his Muslim right hand will be on the Muslim holy book. How is that offensive? He was elected after all. We need a litmus test to keep non-Christians out of the congress?

[nitpicker]

Hey, um, dumb guy? Ellison isn't suggesting that Jefferson was Muslim or tolerant of every belief. (And, wow, did he really have slaves? That's an amazing insight. I'm glad I spent some of the precious minutes of my life here.) Ellison's simply pointing out that American tradition is based on an open-minded view of faith that your modern brethren seem to lack. Don't believe me? Then, the next time someone argues that our country is based on the "JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION" because they saw the 10 Commandments in a relief at the Supreme Court, ask them if they noticed the statue of Mohammed there, too.

As a matter of fact, for every Jeffersonian quote you can find condemning specific Muslim attributes, you can find a half dozen condemning Christianity and the attempt to beat people over the head with faith.

For example: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

Mucho más aquí: http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

[larry]

ahhhhhh, the tired lefty morons weigh in upon the scene with their usual calls for reason; good will; be nice; etc etc. the lads are nothing if not predictable.

and yet......it all falls apart should we turn it around to where THEIR ox gets gored. lets say the backwards, overall-wearing, cousin-marrying hayseed farmers of....oh......"arkansas" elect to congress one of their own: a fellow who follows the sacred teachings of the misunderstood prohet adolf, son of alois, hitler.

and this newly and duly elected representative to the united states congress wants to swear in on *his* holy book: "the protocols of the elders of zion", say. no wait....that won't work, since most leftists secretly are convinced that that little book tells it like it is. yay palestine; greedy grasping israelis; you know.

wait! wait! ok ok ok ok....he wants to swear in on "mein kampf". HIS "holy book".

think we'd be hearing the same cries of "the book he lays his hand on doesn't matter" from our nitwit lefty friends THEN? yeah, me neither.

[Dan Riehl]

"As a matter of fact, for every Jeffersonian quote you can find condemning specific Muslim attributes, you can find a half dozen condemning Christianity and the attempt to beat people over the head with faith."

Is it convenience pr stupidity that causes Liberals to so easily miss the point. There is one religion with a significant movement within it looking to beat people over the head (scratch that - cut off their heads) in the name of religion, and it damn sure isn't Christianity.

[yyy]

It isn't?

Isn't our own President a believer in 'faith based' initiatives on the government's dime? How many non Christian faith based initiatives do you think the administration has given money to?

Hasn't our own Christian President said that god talks to him and god is working through him?

Aren't many of our elected officials hell bent on denying the right of gays to marry, women to have abortions, teens to have access to birth control and schools to teach evolution ALL BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS THEM SO?

The idea of turning a handful of muslim terrorists into an indictment of all Islam is JUST AS RIDICULOUS as Hitler taking a grain of truth about jewish influence in Germany and turning it into a policy of killing all the jews.

There is in fact no difference between your irrational hatred of muslims and the Nazis irrational hatred of jews. Both are based on tiny truths writ large, with a big ole helping of hate and fear.

[Dan Riehl]

your irrational hatred of muslims

I don't hate Muslims at all. What I hate are people who seek America's downfall and who kill innocents without pause to achieve their goals. That isn't all Muslims. My concern isn't based in hate for any religion, or support of another. It's about the preservation of America, a secular democratic country.

[yyy]

No, Dan, that is a lie and the proof are your own posts about muslims, torturing detainees, critics of Bush, the generals, you name it.

I believe if you had your way that we would do exactly what we did in WWII, round up all the muslims, all the arabs and persians and put them in camps if they are American citizens or deport them if they are not.

If you care about preserving America as a secular democratic country, which I also believe is a crock of shit, considering your blogs on church and state, then you should be at least as concerned about turning evangelical christian views about life, love, sex and morality into the law of the land.

They are much more a threat to our secular democracy than a bunch of semi literate muslims who are too stupid to know they are being bamboozled about their own history, culture and religion.

[Thomas Hormby]

How is taking an oath on a Quran a endorsement of Muslim terrorism? When a Catholic takes an oath on the Bible is he endorsing the Spanish Inquisition or Catholic inaction during World War II? Of course not. Why on earth should he take an oath on a book he doesn't believe?

[larry]

although the liberals above spread their usual bovine fertilizer, there IS a point they could have made, yet - somehow, strangely,mysteriously - didn't.

maybe ellison COULD have sworn in on 'mein kampf'. even after all these years, it remains one of the best-selling books ion the middle east, a land populated by....uh....members of the religion of peace.

when a book sells as many copies as MK has, in a given specific region, an argument can be made that the people who live in that region consider the book to be "holy". right up there with the book that tells them its a fine idea to slaughter sheep & goats as a "sacrifice to their god of peace", just like they did 5000 years ago. then they leave the poor animals carcasses on the city streets, and go home for an uproarious day of flogging, bandaging their self-inflicted sacrifice wounds, clitoridectomies, etc, as their holy book prescribes.

just a thought.

[Tigger]

yyy.....idiocy.

"Aren't many of our elected officials hell bent on denying the right of gays to marry, women to have abortions, teens to have access to birth control and schools to teach evolution ALL BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS THEM SO?"

I'm sorry but this line of logic is asinine.

Do you really believe that people oppose abortion simply because a 2000 year old text tells them to? That line of thinking shows just how little interaction and understanding you have on this subject. Most people oppose abortion because it kills an innocent life for your selfish convenience.

Gays have never had the right to marry so it's impossible to deny someone this. Using that logic, I'm denying you the right to breath under water. You've never been able to do it, but I'm still denying you that 'right'.

I'm not sure that denying teens birth control is such a bad thing. Why give them the tools to do something that can only lead to problems? Oh! and saying 'they're going to do it anyway so they may as well be safe is a cop out'. Broken down to it's most basic form that statement simply means that teenagers have no more control of their sexual faculties than the two dogs humping each other in your front yard. They....just.....can't.....HELP themselves.

Being able to control our urges is what seperates us from animals. Just because it's inconvenient doesn't mean it's not possible.

Your post wouldn't have been so sad and pathetic if you didn't actually believe you were putting forth good arguments. You need to take a course in critical thought.

[greg]

Here's Jefferson authoring a piece of legislation that he later claimed was one of his life's greatest achievments: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom of 1786:

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

[Republicans are Riehlly Weak]

Yawn. More weak little conservative babies whining. Boo hoo. A big bad Muslim was lawfully elected and now you right wing wimps need to change your underwear.

Conservatives tout an "originalist" literal interpretation of the Constitution but somehow the last clause of Article VI is open to ... normally I'd say "interpretation", but what conservatives are really doing here is completely ignoring it. I'll quote it because I've found that few people have actually ever read the Constitution: "... but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

In the comments you say "What I hate are people who seek America's downfall and who kill innocents without pause to achieve their goals." Where did Ellison shout "Jihad! Death to America!"? Which innocents did Ellison kill? Was he the 20th hijacker?

You also say "It's about the preservation of America, a secular democratic country." I genuinely agree with this and I think we can find some common ground here. Please direct me to your post about how taking the oath with the Christian Bible is destroying America. I'd love to read it.

P.S. I'd take my oath on something secular like "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs." It has some funny symbols on it and the people on the cover appear to be engaged in some sort of magical ritual. Is this going to be a problem?

[Rob Crawford]

"I'll quote it because I've found that few people have actually ever read the Constitution: "... but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.""

A clause which the left ignores when it comes time to nominate people to the Supreme Court.

BTW -- the biggest beef with Ellison isn't what religion he follows, it's who he associates with. CAIR, Nation of Islam -- not exactly peace-loving, unwavering patriots.

[jim]

Wow.

OK: saying that 1 person of religion X is bad, because another person in religion X did something bad, is illogical and un American.

Period.

Suggesting further that someone duly elected by his peers in America should not be allowed to honestly acknowledge their religion when elected - is disgusting, and contrary to the very principles this nation was founded on.

Seriously.

And all this crap about how all Muslims are America-hating killers because they're Muslim is just that.

Open your eyes. People far wealthier than all of us are manipulating YOU, because they like to have you in a fearful and hateful stance. The GOP, in particular, are playing you for SUCKERS. Please wake up. I'll settle for you actually voting for real conservatives - you know, people who love the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, and not using US soldiers as playthings for ill-conceived and terribly executed adventures in foreign lands.

[jim]

Please show Jefferson's statement that Muslims should not be allowed to be in the US government.

If you can't do that, then please show the statement of ANY of the founding fathers, that the Bible is the only document anyone will be allowed to swear upon.

Since you won't be able to do either, please then have the adulthood and grace to admit you were wrong, and move on. Because honestly, your adherence to this ridiculous position demeans us all as Americans. It is less worthy of discussion than Paris Hilton's latest shoe purchase.

[ajsuhail]

Dan

I feel sorry for u.You got your butt well and truly kicked! Think before u post the next time around.

[micah]

Oh please ajsuhail, Dan did NOT get his butt kicked!
D.R. has the courage to say what reasonable people are secretly thinking, but can't actually say out loud, because the "CHORUS OF THE POLITICALLY CORRECT" will freak out and the earth will explode! Which is only a ridiculous fear - because real TRUTH will stand on its own and will survive the test of time!

[Patrick]

Micah,

I might have the courage to say that hitler was right. I would still be a bigot, no? I would just have "courage". This post and the comments supporting it are pure bullshit. To claim you are for a secular democracy right after you post a rage about someone using the quran is the height of hypocrisy. Dan is having his ass handed to him because his positions are untenable and unamerican.

BTW, does anyone note that this swearing in is his private swearing in, and that at the real one, no religious books are used? so in the end, this post is about as meaningless as it gets, while also being as bigoted and illogical as possible.

I love the nonsequitor about Jefferson owning slaves. Ridiculous. I used to read this post. I don't think I will bother anymore.

[ajacksonian]

Do remember that Jefferson did wage war on Muslims during the First Barbary War ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War ). People do tend to forget how long the US has been fighting Muslims of various sorts, be they pirates or brigands or insurgents in the Philippines or their modern day counter-parts as terrorists.

[jim]

More nonsense....

Jefferson waged war against a nation with Muslims in it. Not a war against all Muslims, and not a war against the Muslim religion in any capacity.

That's like saying because almost all of the British citizens were Christians, the war of 1812 was fought against Christianity.

Honestly. Come on.

[Grand Masta Mencken]

The guy was elected.

There is STILL religous freedom in this country.

He wants to swear by the Koran (or Quran), then let him do it.

There really should be no debate. And Virginia Rep. Goode's jingoistic, brainless, and Unholy remarks are unwarranted.

[Dan Riehl]

For the record, not that that means anything to Liberals, neither I nor Goode ever said Ellison shouldn't be elected. I don't believe there should be a religious test for high office. As someone pointed out, it's the Left that does that when they confirm judges.

The only position I am advocating is an appreciation for Judeo-Christian values in America and the desire to not become a majority Muslim country, given their poor record of advocating secular democracy where they represent majorities.

And the simple fact is, a majority of limp wristed Liberals should, or probably do feel the same way - they just lack the guts to say it. It is not racist to advocate for the preservation of one's preferred way of life. Europe is learning that lesson now, albeit it a bit late.

As usual, the utopianist Left either can't see, or can't handle the truth. And they always attack those who speak it. If it weren't for the silly attacks, individuals like myself and Goode might not realize just how right we are. So, for that, I thank you moonbats. Now fly away, fly away home you l-o-o-o-o-o-sers! Have a nice day.

[jim]

I don't believe there should be a religious test for high office. As someone pointed out, it's the Left that does that when they confirm judges.

I'm glad to hear you don't think there should be a religous test for high office. I just want to point out, that Liberals don't think there should be either.

If what you are alluding to is supporting judges who are pro-Choice, well consider this:

Being Pro-Choice does not mean that you can't be Christian.

My Grandfather was a Methodist minister for 50 years, until he died. He was also pro-Choice. If you don't believe a fetus is a person, there is no conflict.

Therefore you are wrong.

[jim]

"The only position I am advocating is an appreciation for Judeo-Christian values in America and the desire to not become a majority Muslim country, given their poor record of advocating secular democracy where they represent majorities."

Advocate for your beliefs all you wish. Just be aware that in your attempt to force your Christian beliefs to the degree of being upset about what kind of book someone swears into office on, you are advocating against the wishes of our founding fathers.

They didn't want ANY religion in charge. Including very specifically Christianity. That's why they wrote the Constitution the way they did.

[Republicans are Riehlly Weak]

Shorter Rob Crawford and Dan Riehl: someone did something once that offended our principles so now its okay for us to do it.

Dan doesn't believe there should be a religious test for government but it should appreciate "Judeo-Christian" values. And exactly how are you going to enforce that? What if everyone in Kansas decided to convert to Islam? (It is their right.) How exactly do you maintain "Judeo-Christian" values when people can vote for any person they want unless you install some sort of religious test?

[Grand Masta Mencken]

The whole "Liberal" and "Conservative" paradigm used to label Americans is becoming a psychological disease considering both so called categories encompasses a very wide range of different people and beliefs.

If someone supports an elected Islamic representative's right to use the Koran, how is it liberal? And one opposed to it, conservative?

This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It's a tolerance and paranoia issue.

Your fear, and Goode's fear, of a Majority Islamic state shows (with all due respect) ignorance. There are more religons than Islam and Christianity and to say that Islam, somehow, will sweep the nation and convert billions in this country, or that billions of Muslims will enter this country, is severely irrational.

Less we forget the millions of Catholic hispanics who live in higher concentrations just south of the border whom we are turning away just because some papers weren't filled out.

You're right in one respect though, Riehl. Most would want to preserve this way of life. But let's not do it at the expense of another people, or culture, or religion based soley on ones FEAR of an irrational scenarios, and ones IGNORANCE to the complexity of civilization.

Ellison is using Thomas Jefferson's Koran simply because he was attacked for being Muslim, by a man who in his simplistic Norman Rockwell reality, wanted to rile his voters into an angry mob, and to win the hearts of half-wits.

You have a nice day too ;-)

[micah]

So what's next then? Larry Flynt swearing on a copy of Hustler? Mit Romney swearing in on "The Book of Mormon"?

Jefferson was an extremely gifted, but complicated, guy... Upon his deathbed he chose NOT to release his own children from slavery! This is terribly disturbing, but perhaps he thought it was his children's best chances at a comfortable life in that day and age.

[Republicans are Riehlly Weak]

"So what's next then? Larry Flynt swearing on a copy of Hustler?" Yes.

"Mit Romney swearing in on 'The Book of Mormon'?" Yes.

If these people are lawfully elected, they can use whatever they want for the oath. If the voters don't like it, they can vote for someone else. Some elected officials are even subject to recall laws (e.g. the CA gov.). This is how it is supposed to work. Go democracy.

[Peter]

How can you deny someone the right to breathe under water if we aren't physically equipped for such an activity. That is ridiculous. Marriage, however, is a construct of man. It's always been a contract one way or the other no matter what the folks who don't know anything about history say. The marriage question - for once and for all - is about equal rights under the law. It's the ability for you to protect your loved one and provide for them in case of death of one or the other. It's about getting your social security benefits or allowing your loved one to received those benefits upon your death. Gay marriage will not affect you or touch your life if you happen to be a happily or unhappily married straight person. So, really, butt out and shut the f*u*k up.

Our friends of the Judeo-Christian ilk need to remember that there are other beliefs out there (and that there are some of us who don't actually believe all that hookum) and that this is a nation that has no state-mandated religion. The framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing. Your Mein Kampf argument is specious. Pull your heads out and look around. There are some real problems out there. This is NOT one of them.

[Purple Avenger]

"Some elected officials are even subject to recall laws"

Any congressional rep can be thrown out on a 3/4 vote. No trial needed, no impeachment needed. Just a 3/4 vote.

[Dan Riehl]

Funny that people want to make this only about using a koran in a private ceremony, which is not even the issue being raised. I don't object to him using it. And if he wants to misuse Jefferson's, so be it. My point is it's a shallow trick only serving to hide the face of radical islam today - a radical islam with which ELlison has already been linked to some degree.

[retire05]

Peter, first you seem to forget that gays do have equal rights under the law and as much right to marry as anyone else. They are also limited to marry someone of the "opposite" sex. What you are advocating is changing the law based on nothing else except behavior. So please, name me one law ever enacted that was done so because of behavior. Please.
Secondly, Ellison's decision to take the oath of office using the Quran was not one of seeking religious freedom and if you think it was, you are sorely mistaken. It is in keeping with the teaching of the Quran to force others to accept Islam as the one, true faith. Even so, I would not have a problem with his using the Quran if, and it is a big IF, it were not for the fact that Ellison's past is there to haunt him; his connection with the Nation of Islam, a violent group; his acceptance of campaign contributions from CAIR and that those who elected him think that shouting "Allah akbar" is the rallying cry for his campaign; his immediate aid to the "Flying Imams" and his defense of them; and the fact that not once has Ellison denounced the activites of the terrorists who belong to his religion. I would be equally unhappy with a candidate who followers shouted "In the name of Jesus" at his rallies.
If you knew anything about Islam (which you don't seem to) you would know that Islam mandates that a Muslim's loyalty is never to any nation, but rather only to Islam, so immediately, Ellison has a conflict.
If, and when, the time comes for Ellison to act according to our Constitution or according to Islamic law, what will his choice be?

[Thomas Hormby]

"As usual, the utopianist Left either can't see, or can't handle the truth."

How is using a Quran in a private, non-binding ceremony an act of the 'utopianist' Left? Do all Muslims want America to burn? Does Ellison want America to burn?

Timothy McVeigh was pretty disgusted with American government and culture. Were his actions an act of war of Christians everyhwere on America? I don't believe in collective guilt.

[Thomas Hormby]

Amen Peter!

Why shouldn't Gays enjoy the same custody, medical access and inheritance rights that heterosexuals enjoy? Marriage is a tool to protect couples and their families.

[nitpicker]

Why am I not surprised that only those on the right continue to mistake Mein Kampf for a holy book?

[Thomas Hormby]

"What you are advocating is changing the law based on nothing else except behavior. So please, name me one law ever enacted that was done so because of behavior. Please."

What about the anti-sodomy laws struck down in Texas? Gay sex became so common that society's opinion changed, SCOTUS' interpretation of the constitutional right to privacy changed and eventually the law changed too.

[JML]

Dan,

Mr. Ellison is the very first Muslim elected to congress, no?. I don't see a tidal wave of Muslims taking over our government. Then again, the lunatic-fringe Christian fundamentalists who have been in charge of America for the last six years have given us a faith-based foreign policy that might have worked out had reality not intervened. Maybe if we all pray at the same time...

How is Mr. Ellison a threat to your Christian ways? How is this evidence that America is on its way to becoming a majority Muslim country? What's the matter Dan; is the world just a bit too complicated for your tastes?

Here's an idea: Let's give Mr. Ellison a chance to prove his worth. In the end, the people in his district will be the ones who decide whether he lives up to his expectations, not the rest of us.

Should I ever get eleceted to any office in this country, I wanna be sworn in using a DVD of The Big Lebowski.

[anonymous]

"... a radical islam with which ELlison has already been linked to some degree."

To some degree, Dan has been linked to radical right-wing extremists who want to kill all who disagree with them. To some degree, Dan has been linked to fascists who want to outlaw any religious worship except for Christianity. To some degree, Dan has been linked to people who want to kill puppies.

[jim Ricker]

I tried, I really tried, to read down the post and comments but I can't stand it. Dan Riehl is really, really, stupid. Goodbye.

[larry]

odd, is it not, that none of the bright-eyed hardcore kneejerk leftwing droolers currently infesting this thread wants to comment on 'mein kampf's everlasting bestseller status in the (arab)(islamic)(religion of peace) middle east?

usually outsold only by the koran itself. the koran; and 'mein kampf'. quite a bit in common, although hitler did not specifically endorse animal sacrifice or clitoridectomies, as the koran is alleged to.

so we can then assume our liberal friends would have no problem with a kkk type swearing in on a copy of MK? that what you're saying?

[JML]

Larry,

Given Hitler's "struggle" against the Jews outlined in Mein Kampf, it shouldn't surprise you that dictatorial regimes and monarchies in the Middle East employ a propogate-hatred-for-the-Jews-so-the-public-doesn't-turn-against-the-regime strategy that would allow Mein Kampf to make it past the government censors. Middle Eastern governments are all about manupulating their people. Bear in mind that in most of the Middle East, the flow if information is far from free and people will only buy that which is offered for sale.

Saddam revered the Third Reich as a model of sorts for his regime. Would you please explain to us the cozy relationship of the Reagan (Conservative Hero) Administration with Saddam, you know, the Saddam who used Hitler as a model? Wasn't Don Rumsfeld a special envoy to Iraq in the early 1980's? Or was that during the days that Saddam was a saint? Tell us all how that served the Goodly Conservative Christian American interests. Really, please tell us, because I can't figure it out.

Would I have a problem with a KKK type swearing in on a copy of Mein Kampf? No, I would have a problem with a KKK type swearing in at all, but then this is America and southern states (or Indiana) are free to elect whomever they choose. Besides, a KKK type would probably swear in on the Bible since they are such proper Christians. (Oh, yes they are, just ask one!)

[Thomas Hormby]

"odd, is it not, that none of the bright-eyed hardcore kneejerk leftwing droolers currently infesting this thread wants to comment on 'mein kampf's everlasting bestseller status in the (arab)(islamic)(religion of peace) middle east?"

Hard to imagine that anti-semitism might have taken hold in a region dominated by Israeli force. The Quran explicitly defines Jews as being 'of the book' and deserving of protection. It just happens that politics trumps religion (kind of like living an ascetic lifestyle in consumerist America)

[Thomas Hormby]

"Saddam revered the Third Reich as a model of sorts for his regime. Would you please explain to us the cozy relationship of the Reagan (Conservative Hero) Administration with Saddam, you know, the Saddam who used Hitler as a model? Wasn't Don Rumsfeld a special envoy to Iraq in the early 1980's? Or was that during the days that Saddam was a saint? Tell us all how that served the Goodly Conservative Christian American interests. Really, please tell us, because I can't figure it out."

On top of that, Saddam was a secular, socialist, pan-arabist. Hardly a devotee to Islam. He once had Quranic verses written in blood in a mosque built to resemble SCUD missiles (both considered heretical). Politics definitely trumped Islam in Baathist Iraq just as capitalism trumps Christianity in America.

[Thomas Hormby]

"so we can then assume our liberal friends would have no problem with a kkk type swearing in on a copy of MK? that what you're saying?"

I'm a liberal type and I wouldn't have a problem with a KKK-member being sworn in on a copy of Mein Kampf. Unlike the BRD where reverence for Mein Kampf is illegal, Americans have the right to free expression. I wouldn't vote for him, but if he wins it's his prerogative.

[Antioch]

"But let's look at even more of the picture, while not forgetting that Jefferson owned a slave or two, as well. Is Ellison planing on swearing in on one of them, too? And if so, what religion do you think he or she would be?"

This logic is ridiculous. What does that even mean?

Let's look at more of your picture. The internet has Maoist flyingfishing hate groups with web sites on it. Are you planning on becoming the leader of a Maoist flyfishing hate group too? And if so, what would your mother say about this if she knew you were a Maoist flyfishing KKK member?

[Bat Guano]

Gee Dan,

It's all about hate isn't it? Anyone of a different color or persuasion just doesn't cut in your book do they? The facts don't really matter as long as you get to exercise your thinly veiled rascism. Grow up, you're making yourself look like a pathetic, paranoid, rascist little man.

[Doctor Slack]

"a radical islam with which ELlison has already been linked to some degree."

The "degree" being that he's a Muslim. By which standard all Christian have been "to some degree" linked to Timothy McVeigh.

And I love it how, when a Muslim happens to inconveniently fail to provide fodder for the jihad-obsessed, he's somehow engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the truth about radical Islam. He can't possibly be just another human being living his life.

Yeah, you don't hate Muslims. Riiiight.

[Dan Riehl]

This logic is ridiculous. What does that even mean?

How can you ask and profess to understand logic? Jefferson owned a Koran - that's somehow supposed to make it special. I pointed out that he "owned" slaves. So, are they special, too? The point is, whether Jefferson owned a koran or not is irrelevant, particuarly as he was forced to go to war against Muslim nations. Ellison's gesture is one of those empty gestures the Left always eats up. The notion that Ellison, a flunky of CAIR, the CAIR Boxer just pulled an award from due to their link to terrorism, is linked in some way to the legacy of Jefferson is a freaking joke.

So, where are all the libs telling us how islamo-phobic Senator Boxer is, huh?

What a bunch of clueless l-o-o-o-o-o-sers you are, as if you knew anything about logic in the first place.

[KH]

What possible reason could you have to dismiss the idea that Jefferson read the Koran as part of his reflection on natural law – in particular, in connection with his study of Pufendorf’s De jure naturae et gentium (which you refer to, without the least glimmer of recognition, as just “another book said to be prejudiced against Islam”) – as speculation with an “anti-theist sounding slant”? Do you actually have the least idea what the natural law tradition is? Pufendorf’s role in it? Its, or Pufendorf’s, influence on Jefferson? Its role in the American founding? Or is bumptious American populist "conservatism" so far degenerated that these seem like obscure academic questions?

The idea that an 18th century intellectual steeped in the natural law tradition would read the Koran is neither surprising – indeed, it would have been surprising if Jefferson hadn’t read it – nor “anti-theistic speculation.”

I also suspect that Thomas Jefferson would hold Riehl & his ilk beneath contempt.