Teacher Breaks Wall of Silence at State’s Muslim Public School
April 9th, 2008 – 7:08 AMEvidence suggests, however, that TIZA is an Islamic school, funded by Minnesota taxpayers.
TIZA has many characteristics that suggest a religious school. It shares the headquarters building of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, whose mission is “establishing Islam in Minnesota.” The building also houses a mosque. TIZA’s executive director, Asad Zaman, is a Muslim imam, or religious leader, and its sponsor is an organization called Islamic Relief.
Students pray daily, the cafeteria serves halal food - permissible under Islamic law — and “Islamic Studies” is offered at the end of the school day.
Zaman maintains that TIZA is not a religious school. He declined, however, to allow me to visit the school to see for myself, “due to the hectic schedule for statewide testing.” But after I e-mailed him that the Minnesota Department of Education had told me that testing would not begin for several weeks, Zaman did not respond — even to urgent calls and e-mails seeking comment before my first column on TIZA.
Now, however, an eyewitness has stepped forward. Amanda Getz of Bloomington is a substitute teacher. She worked as a substitute in two fifth-grade classrooms at TIZA on Friday, March 14. Her experience suggests that school-sponsored religious activity plays an integral role at TIZA.
Arriving on a Friday, the Muslim holy day, she says she was told that the day’s schedule included a “school assembly” in the gym after lunch.
Before the assembly, she says she was told, her duties would include taking her fifth-grade students to the bathroom, four at a time, to perform “their ritual washing.”
Afterward, Getz said, “teachers led the kids into the gym, where a man dressed in white with a white cap, who had been at the school all day,” was preparing to lead prayer. Beside him, another man “was prostrating himself in prayer on a carpet as the students entered.”
“The prayer I saw was not voluntary,” Getz said. “The kids were corralled by adults and required to go to the assembly where prayer occurred.”
Islamic Studies was also incorporated into the school day. “When I arrived, I was told ‘after school we have Islamic Studies,’ and I might have to stay for hall duty,” Getz said. “The teachers had written assignments on the blackboard for classes like math and social studies. Islamic Studies was the last one — the board said the kids were studying the Qu’ran. The students were told to copy it into their planner, along with everything else. That gave me the impression that Islamic Studies was a subject like any other.”
After school, Getz’s fifth-graders stayed in their classroom and the man in white who had led prayer in the gym came in to teach Islamic Studies. TIZA has in effect extended the school day — buses leave only after Islamic Studies is over. Getz did not see evidence of other extra-curricular activity, except for a group of small children playing outside. Significantly, 77 percent of TIZA parents say that their “main reason for choosing TIZA … was because of after-school programs conducted by various non-profit organizations at the end of the school period in the school building,” according to a TIZA report. TIZA may be the only school in Minnesota with this distinction.
Why does the Minnesota Department of Education allow this sort of religious activity at a public school? According to Zaman, the department inspects TIZA regularly — and has done so “numerous times” — to ensure that it is not a religious school.
But the department’s records document only three site visits to TIZA in five years — two in 2003-04 and one in 2007, according to Assistant Commissioner Morgan Brown. None of the visits focused specifically on religious practices.
Zaman agreed to respond by e-mail to concerns raised about the school’s practices. Student “prayer is not mandated by TIZA,” he wrote, and so is legal. On Friday afternoons, “students are released … to either join a parent-led service or for study hall.” Islamic Studies is provided by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, and other “nonsectarian” after-school options are available, he added.
Yet prayer at TIZA does not appear to be spontaneously initiated by students, but rather scheduled, organized and promoted by school authorities.
Request for volunteers
Until recently, TIZA’s website included a request for volunteers to help with “Friday prayers.” In an e-mail, Zaman explained this as an attempt to ensure that “no TIZA staff members were involved in organizing the Friday prayers.”
But an end run of this kind cannot remove the fact of school sponsorship of prayer services, which take place in the school building during school hours. Zaman does not deny that “some” Muslim teachers “probably” attend. According to federal guidelines on prayer in schools, teachers at a public school cannot participate in prayer with students.
In addition, schools cannot favor one religion by offering services for only its adherents, or promote after-school religious instruction for only one group. The ACLU of Minnesota has launched an investigation of TIZA, and the Minnesota Department of Education has also begun a review.
TIZA’s operation as a public, taxpayer-funded school is troubling on several fronts. TIZA is skirting the law by operating what is essentially an Islamic school at taxpayer expense. The Department of Education has failed to provide the oversight necessary to catch these illegalities, and appears to lack the tools to do so. In addition, there’s a double standard at work here — if TIZA were a Christian school, it would likely be gone in a heartbeat.
TIZA is now being held up as a national model for a new kind of charter school. If it passes legal muster, Minnesota taxpayers may soon find themselves footing the bill for a separate system of education for Muslims.
247 Responses to "Teacher Breaks Wall of Silence at State’s Muslim Public School"
KK, hopefully the Dept of Education will see this and put a stop to it. We all know if this was any other public school and if Christianity was pushed on the students every lib in the state would be up in arms. It will be interesting to read today how they (lib bloggers) “reason” this out!
You know I was watching the news election night and saw keith Ellison’s victory speech. While the crowd clapped and just before he started you hear a very loud voice yell Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar.
Now being an old time hater of everything religion I was a bit shocked. I expected this to be the topic of conversation or a least a questioning story in the paper or an editorial or something.
Not a word……Not a word.
Can you imagine someone at Backmanns victory speech standing in the back yelling “Jesus is Great, Jesus is great?
What are the chances this Paper would have that as a headline to the story ( %100 ).
What are the chances we’d see an editorial condemning it (%100)
What are the chances the Fruitcakes in town would blow a cork (% 1,000,000)
I’ve been very surprised by those who have been in the habit of condemning anything religious in our society that they haven’t included this most dangerous religion to their list. It just really boggles a guys mind.
I mean you can come on here and say the religious right is dangerous. I’ll give Ya that. But Islam in its “rightist form” makes the religious right here look like the minor leagues.
Katherine, this is good intrepid reporting. You’ve done a public service because people need to know about public dollars being misspent.
All the same, I wish you could write in a less fear-mongering manner. I wish you would write in a less divisive manner. Please think about it. Again.
We all know if this was any other public school and if Christianity was pushed on the students every lib in the state would be up in arms.
Absolutely, as well they should – and so should every conservative. When the state selects a particular religious dogma to endorse, even if that endorsement is the passive allowance of public funds to be used for religious indoctrination, everyone’s freedom of religious choice is threatened. The particular religion endorsed is irrelevant.
If Katherine’s claims about TIZA turn out to be true, here’s one liberal who would be equally up in arms. Public schools are inappropriate settings for religious indoctrination. I don’t mind students learning about religions – in fact, I think it’s important that they do – but that’s very different from indoctrinating students into a religion.
People who desire a religious education for their children should take their children to a religious establishment (church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.), enroll them in a private religious school, and/or provide that education themselves at home. I approve of home schooling when parents are truly qualified to give their children a good education (and not only a religious one).
Having said that, students and faculty should be allowed to practice their religions in a private, non-distracting way while at school. If their religious practices interfere with learning or teaching, though, students/staff should consider a private educational alternative to public school. Students should not be with adults for religious worship while on public school property, and no student should ever be made to feel compelled to participate in any religious event (even when no faculty/staff are present).
“the cafeteria serves halal food permissible under Islamic law”
I had no Idea my diet has been permissible under islamic law.
Menu fron TIZA website for April 14-18:
“14-Apr
Italian Meatball Submarine
Potato Wedges
Salad, Veggies, Fruit, Milk
15-Apr
Chicken Fajita Wrap
Seasoned Brown Rice
Salad, Veggies, Fruit, Milk
16-Apr
Cheese Quiche
Soft Breadstick
Salad, Veggies, Fruit, Milk
17-Apr
Roast Turkey
Mashed Potatoes & Wheat Roll
Salad, Veggies, Fruit, Milk
18-Apr
BQ Chicken Sandwich
Calico Beans
Salad, Veggies, Fruit, Milk”
“If Katherine’s claims about TIZA turn out to be true, here’s one liberal who would be equally up in arms.”
Evil can you explain to me why others don’t see it as you do. Is it just this “one side makes noise, so we are on the other side so we have to contest it”…see what I mean.
I can remember the morning of 911 ( now remember I’m a democrat at the time ) saying to the “Rightwing Nutjob” I worked with. “Well at least we know the anti-religious crowd in my party will be a help in this fight” figuring if those folks though Christian fundamentalism was bad wait till they see this.
Boy I was wrong ! And to this day I’m surprised by many of these people attitudes.
Well said, EBF. As a conservative Christian, I agree that prayer and religion have no place in the public school. When I was a child, my parents decided that they wanted me to have religion in school, so they sent me to a private school that they paid tuition for. That is how it should be. If people want religious education for their children, they should pay for it themselves. Public School is for learning the basics, math, science, reading etc., not for praying.
“if TIZA were a Christian school, it would likely be gone in a heartbeat.”
Please, KK. If TIZA were a Christian school, I doubt you would write about it or go on a vendetta to shut it down. Perhaps this school is more about ethnicity or nationality than it is religion. Or do you have a problem with middle eastern ethnic groups in general?
I’m not for publicly funded religous schools but I wonder how much complaining Katherine would be doing if christians were allowed to do the same thing that she protests about this school.
Hey everyone! KK is being interviewed on 1500 AM right now.
I heard the girls taken from this Christian compound the other day described in the press as wearing cloths “not of this century”.
Fine I agree…….but I found that sort of “labeling” odd. Would the same reporter describe the dress of some woman of the Muslim faith in this country as wearing cloths “not of this century”.
Maybe I’m to picking but the more I look around the more double standards I see. I guess maybe because I’m looking for them where others are not. I don’t know.
Hey maybe its the old liberal in me that is always “asking”, “questioning”…Ahhh an art that is no longer a part of modern liberalism.
“Can you imagine someone at Backmanns victory speech standing in the back yelling “Jesus is Great, Jesus is great? What are the chances this Paper would have that as a headline to the story ( %100 ).
What are the chances we’d see an editorial condemning it (%100)
What are the chances the Fruitcakes in town would blow a cork (% 1,000,000)”
Actors, musicians, Sports stars, politicians etc…thank God and Jesus all the time in public it doesn’t make front page news and there aren’t editorials condemning it.
“Hey everyone! KK is being interviewed on 1500 AM right now.”
I got 1 billion blogs dollars that says she won’t be on with Don Shelby on CCO this afternoon.
Hell if you want to biblical. I will bet my one and only first born male child that doesn’t happen.
shrimpy give me a break…you know what I was getting at.
“Can you imagine someone at Backmanns victory speech standing in the back yelling “Jesus is Great, Jesus is great?
What are the chances this Paper would have that as a headline to the story ( %100 ).
What are the chances we’d see an editorial condemning it (%100)
What are the chances the Fruitcakes in town would blow a cork (% 1,000,000)”
BS.
EBV, what’s happened to you? Have you been kidnapped and brainwashed? I think this is twice in a very short time we’ve agreed on something, or should I say you’ve agree with me? Great, we’ll make a good little citizen out of you yet! Isn’t there a Gay Republican group you can join?
Actually, there is one part of your comment I don’t agree on, that’s where you say “Having said that, students and faculty should be allowed to practice their religions in a private, non-distracting way while at school.” I’m really not comfortable having religion in the school period.
“4blahs says; BS”
What do you mean BS. You’re saying there wouldn’t be a mention of it in this paper?
Honestly ?
You don’t think the JonR’s of this world wouldn’t blow a casket?
Come on Mark
“What do you mean BS. You’re saying there wouldn’t be a mention of it in this paper?
Honestly ?”
Tiny,
You’re loooooooosing it. I hear politicians play up their christianity ALL THE TIME. CONSTANTLY. You cant get eleceted in this country unless you brag about how religious you are.
I dont see headlines and editorials about it. You are sounding more and more like Rev. Wright every day.
Rev. Tiny, thats your new blog nickname.
“You don’t think the JonR’s of this world wouldn’t blow a casket?”
You mean more than you are doing right now?
I agree with KK that tax dollars shouldn’t go towards promoting or endorsing a religion. I’d actually believe she was really concerned about this if she wrote this column regarding prayers before football games or graduations.
I do have trouble figuring out the gray area in the following hypothetical. Suppose I’m a Muslim and I can’t afford to send my kid to a private school. Assume I’d be comfortable with a school that didn’t teach religion but simply excused my child to pray according to my beliefs. Would it be possible for me to find such a school?
I guess I see talking up your Christianity a little different then vocally declaring the greatness of your god(chanting) in public. I don’t think thats happening.
I don’t know where the National Atheists come down on this stuff but I would think they would look at the “dangers” of both religions equally.
Other then wanting to be graced with the “I accept other cultures” halo, why wouldn’t they been seen as the same.
It just boggles a guys mind.
Evil gets it…its not that hard. No special accommodation or Public money for anything religious.
Trident, I’m guessing there’s no pork in that menu, and there won’t be anytime in the future.
Also, maybe Katherine should be more careful. I think some lessons can be learned from the Dutch. Then again she could go into exile. I’m sure that would make a lot of people who comment on this blog happy.
Hi EBF.
Wow,
Who thought I’d see the day? KK and the ACLU joining forces to take down a clandestine Muslim school supported by taxpayer dollars. Politics makes strange bedfellows once again.
Nice piece of journalism, although I find myself wondering whether the reporter is motivated more to persecute Muslims specifically than by a sense that taxpayer dollars be allocated in accordance with the Constitution.
Nevertheless Separation of Church and State applies to everyone. In this case I will stand back and let Katherine kick over their sandcastle.
If Katherine wants to prove to me that this isn’t just an anti-Muslim crusade on her part, she can advocate next to get that stupid “under God” line out of the Pledge Allegiance that all children in public schools are compelled to recite.
“I don’t think thats happening”
Are you serious? I hear it all the time. I hear Christians do it. I hear Muslims do it. Everyone is doing it. Your the only one that isnt seeing it I guess.
I also see people like D2 and his types bash Ellison as much as I see and hear others bashing Bachman. Its equal Tiny. How many people lost control when the Islamic cabbies had their deal. Or when footbaths went into MCTC? If you think people dont gripe and write editorials about Islam youre wrong.
“I don’t know where the National Atheists come down on this stuff but I would think they would look at the “dangers” of both religions equally.”
Public schools shouldnt be promoting ANY religion. Ive said that hundreds of times.
If this information is true, TIZA should be turned into a private school. Religion has no place in a public school, period.
By the way, I’m an agnostic liberal who attended private Catholic school for most of my education.
Mark you hear Christians at political rallies with the candidates there yelling out “Jesus is Great, Jesus is great”
I watch the news and sh^t. I know I don’t get out much. But I never..at least not around here.
I don’t think saying “god bless you” or “Allah bless you” at the end of a speech is a big deal.
But proclaiming that’s a different story…and Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar is proclaiming.
“she can advocate next to get that stupid “under God” line out of the Pledge Allegiance”
How about “under Darwin”?
Gypsy
Suppose I’m a Muslim and I can’t afford to send my kid to a private school. Assume I’d be comfortable with a school that didn’t teach religion but simply excused my child to pray according to my beliefs. Would it be possible for me to find such a school?
The freedom of speech gives students the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss religious views with their peers, so long as they are not disruptive of an educational activity.
“Before the assembly, she says she was told, her duties would include taking her fifth-grade students to the bathroom, four at a time, to perform “their ritual washing.””
Do they offer up bowls of holy water for the Catholics?
“Mark you hear Christians at political rallies with the candidates there yelling out “Jesus is Great, Jesus is great””
Tiny, if you dont think there are christians out there doing that, well good for you. We can still be blog friends. Me? Ive seen and heard many christians do their stuff at rallies and Ive seen Muslims do it too. Ive seen people like GHS go after Bachman as much as D2 has gone after Ellison.
You mean if I go to a Bachman rally there is a good chance with her present that I will hear the chant “Jesus is Great, Jesus is great”
I’m sure it would be in the paper if they did. The media turn a blind eye to the chants at Ellison’s victory rally and you seem to be able to make that distinction.
If they are chatting “Jesus is Great, Jesus is great” let me know I’ll give my congresswoman a call.
The Department of Education has failed to provide the oversight necessary to catch these illegalities, and appears to lack the tools to do so.
The problem is not what happens at TIZA when the inspectors are present, but what happens when the inspectors are not present. Perhaps the Department of Education should put an inspector in the school on a daily basis to ensure the school complies with state law.
TIZA is in the Inver Grove Heights ISD 199. What responsibility does this school board have to ensuring the school complies with state law or is that responsibility solely up to the Department of Education?
You don’t think the JonR’s of this world wouldn’t blow a casket?
Wrong, tiny litess. Bachmann can say and believe whatever she wants…I don’t care. But when she attempts to impose her religious beliefs upon the entire body politic through the legislative process, you bet I’ll “blow a gasket.”
“Tiny, if you dont think there are christians out there doing that, well good for you. We can still be blog friends. Me? Ive seen and heard many christians do their stuff at rallies and Ive seen Muslims do it too”
Tiny,
I agree with 4Blahs on this. Except the gay part about still being blog freinds.
I just don’t want to hear
“The King is dead. Long live the King!”
Now that really chafes my buns.
“But when she attempts to impose her religious beliefs upon the entire body politic through the legislative process, you bet I’ll “blow a gasket.””
Whos this guy “Gasket”
JonR
I support the right of everyone to hold whatever religious beliefs they want to hold. However, if one (and I’m not necessarily suggesting you) does not want to be called a Bible-thumper, then one should not seek to impose his/her religous beliefs upon everyone else through the electoral and/or legislative process by supporting such actions as anti-gay laws and amendments.
Wrong, tiny litess. Bachmann can say and believe whatever she wants…I don’t care. But when she attempts to impose her religious beliefs upon the entire body politic through the legislative process, you bet I’ll “blow a gasket.”
However, JonR does not have any problem imposing HIS beliefs on the entire body politic through the judicial process!!!
What adds insult to injury in JonR’s hypocrisy is that he does not think that he is imposing his beliefs.
What JonR needs to do is learn about the democratic process for our republic that is based on the US Constitution.
The first question here seems to be whether this is a religious school. Many have voiced their opinions.
An important secondary question is whether it a good thing to emphasize cultural differences so strongly. I think this can lead to separation and isolation. Is it a good thing to separate children into numerous small groups based on cultural or religious heritage? I don’t think so. I would prefer assimilation along with accommodation for differences.
“You mean if I go to a Bachman rally there is a good chance with her present that I will hear the chant “Jesus is Great, Jesus is great”
I’m sure it would be in the paper if they did. The media turn a blind eye to the chants at Ellison’s victory rally and you seem to be able to make that distinction.”
You make me laugh Tiny. Is it that one term your hung up on? Allahu Akbar? Ive heard Praise the Lord! Or Thank You Jesus! at rallies. SAME THING TINY.
Ever hear of the national prayer breakfast?
If you think overt Christianity is a political liability and will result in headlines and editorials, your prefectly within your rights to believe that.
When Bachman was sworn in with a bible and Ellison was sworn in with the Koran, who got the editorials and headlines? Think about it.
Blah says; “I dont see headlines and editorials about it. You are sounding more and more like Rev. Wright every day.”
You mean I’m “misunderstood” is that what you mean? Or
Your reading my stuff out of context?
JonR
impose his/her religous beliefs upon everyone else through the electoral and/or legislative process by supporting such actions as anti-gay laws and amendments.
Believing government should only rcognized a marriage between a man and a woman is NOT a religious belief. (It may be based from a religious belief but the belief in itself is not a religious belief.)
So if the majority of US citizens want a marriage to be between a man and a woman then that is what a marriage is defined as in the US.
Remember ALL laws are derived through the majority will of the public - whether through a direct or republican democratic process.
“You mean I’m “misunderstood” is that what you mean? Or
Your reading my stuff out of context?”
I mean you complain about things. You complain about what you percieve as injustice. How you are a VICTIM. Kind of like Rev. Wright.
But you’re still the funniest guy on the blog.
“You make me laugh Tiny. Is it that one term your hung up on? Allahu Akbar? Ive heard Praise the Lord! Or Thank You Jesus! at rallies. SAME THING TINY.”
I agree with this — I’ve heard God is Good!, Amen!, Halleluiah! when people are voicing their agreement or excitement. It doesn’t bother me, either would Allahu Akbar. I think they all mean the same thing.
Hey if it wasn’t for some media people with some nads in this town we’d never ever know about this stuff.
And you know one thing that still really sticks with me and I always think of when issues like this come up …is the total lack of humility demonstrated by our“flying Imams” The balls to do what they did…..its just unimaginable to me… and the games people played after they did it. It truly was the beginning of the end of my faith in people who live by the tall buildings.
There should have been condemnation ( with no buts ) from every side, every where. PERIOD
“Hey if it wasn’t for some media people with some nads in this town we’d never ever know about this stuff.”
This stuff is irrelevant to me. Maybe not to you but to me its totally irrelevant. I watched Bachman at her election eve rally. I heard a guy say “Thank God Michelle got elected!” Then she said something like, “We are going to change Washington!” and the same dude yells out “God Willing!”. Not a single editorial.
Same deal Tiny. Also irrelevant.
The comparisons to Michelle Bachmann are apt because she’s been busted before (prior to her career as a Congresswoman) trying to run a bible-based school as a charter school with state funds.
I guess I don’t lie awake at night worrying that there are people of all faiths trying to manipulate the system to have taxpayer dollars fund charter schools that are a front for religious indoctrination. They get exposed and their funding goes away, which is what I suspect will happen in the case of this school. It’s a good scoop for Katherine but I find myself reflecting on the words of T.S. Elliot from Murder in the Cathedral, where he has Archbishop Thomas Beckett questioning his own motives for martyrdom, saying,
“the last temptation
is the greatet treason,
to do the right thing
for the wrong reason.”
I feel a little sorry for the parents who will have to scramble to figure out how to pay for private school tuition if TIZA continues as such. I suppose all the devout Christians out there who send their kids to parochial schools will just shrug at them and say “get used to it.”
Maybe the fundamentalist Muslims and Christians will join forces against Katherine and the ACLU (damn that sounds funny) and mount a campaign to amend the US Constitution and state statutes and actually make the letter of the law allow their brand of education at taxpayers’ expense. That’s their prerogative in this democracy. Until they change the rules by the book, though, I guess I don’t appreciate them having taxpayer-funded religions schools on the sly.
Well Mark the “Thank God”, Christ I say that.
“Thank God that bullet in North Minneapolis missed me”
Now the “God Willing” ….
But still not the same as saying; “My God is Great” ….thats a much finer line.
DAR
I feel a little sorry for the parents who will have to scramble to figure out how to pay for private school tuition if TIZA continues as such.
Those parents could send their kids to a public school (its free but non-religious).
Do you feel sorry for the devout christians who would like to have their child taught in a parochial but cannot afford it so they have to send them to a public school?
I suppose all the devout Christians out there who send their kids to parochial schools will just shrug at them and say “get used to it.”
Maybe its the devout chistians who can NOT afford to send their kids to a parochial school and have to send them to a public school who will say to the parents of the TIZA students to “get used to it”
DAR
Maybe the fundamentalist Muslims and Christians will join forces against Katherine and the ACLU (damn that sounds funny) and mount a campaign to amend the US Constitution and state statutes and actually make the letter of the law allow their brand of education at taxpayers’ expense. That’s their prerogative in this democracy. Until they change the rules by the book, though, I guess I don’t appreciate them having taxpayer-funded religions schools on the sly.
Excellent view on how majority will changes laws in a democracy. (I am being serious - not facetious)
Others on this blog, especially JonR and EBF, could stand to learn how that process works.
“Well Mark the “Thank God”, Christ I say that.”
Well I guess that makes it okay then huh? What was that you were saying about double standards?
“But still not the same as saying; “My God is Great” ….thats a much finer line.”
To you. Not to me. To me its all the same and all irelevant. Besides to that guy maybe his god is great? He didnt say mine is better. Maybe you’re just showing your Rev. Tiny insecurity? Tiny the victim.
Perhaps my view is symplistic but school is for learning.
The home or church/place of worship is for religion, religious education and praying.
As a christian person I say MANY prayers during the day but since I live in a salad bowl world I say my prayers to myself as a sign of respect for those who don’t believe as I do.
I don’t want the tax dollars I pay for education to be spent on religious education of any kind.
“The comparisons to Michelle Bachmann are apt because she’s been busted before (prior to her career as a Congresswoman) trying to run a bible-based school as a charter school with state funds.”
See with Bachmann being the boogeywoman and all I’m not sure if this is a “boy cried wolf” thing again or if its true. You know like her being the female anti-Christ and other whacko things I’ve read about her here.
“See with Bachmann being the boogeywoman and all I’m not sure if this is a “boy cried wolf” thing again or if its true. You know like her being the female anti-Christ and other whacko things I’ve read about her here.”
Exactly what I feel about how Ellison is treated. Come to think of it I seem to remember that you’ve thrown Ellison the Muslim Boogieman under the bus once or twice. SAME THING TINY. Dont pretend that Christians take heat and Muslims dont because of PC nonesence.
Dont be like D2 with Ellison or GHS with Bachman. Youre too funny for that.
“As a christian person I say MANY prayers during the day but since I live in a salad bowl world I say my prayers to myself as a sign of respect for those who don’t believe as I do.”
How refreshing. You mean you dont need the whole word to watch you pray for it to be meaningful? You mean I dont need to be an active participant as a bystander for you to talk to your god? I like this concept.
So 4 blahs, you seem to unconcerned that TIZA is receiving state funding?
This a school that should raise scrutiny, even from its name, honoring Tarek ibn Ziyad, the Muslim conqueror of Spain, who followed the orders of Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid to carry the flame of Muslim Jihad against the infidels of Europe in 711. Never mind that this school is founded, yes founded, by a Muslim group that has as its publicly stated mission the establishment of Islam in Minnesota. No warning signs there of a religious agenda, right?
Consider the “Christian equivalent” to see if you are equally non-plussed. Let’s say that the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, started a charter school in your local community and named it after a crusader king that conquered Jerusalem and slaughtered Muslims in the name of God. Not a comparable equivalent? Both founders and chief prophets of the two religions were polygamists and took child-brides as young as 9 years old. No apples and oranges here… both founders used divine justification to advocate practices that are against the law in Minnesota. Then the organizers of the FLDS school promise to avoid religious instruction in return for state financial support. I am guessing you would still sign up to send your tax dollars there without checking.
Later, it is commonly observed that all girls going into the school wear traditional 19th Century settler garb. While strictly legal, this is characteristic of the fundamentalist religious order of the founder of the school. Still OK, right? That is… right enough to receive state financial subsidy as a non-religious public school?
Then a part-time teacher reports religious services conducted in the school “technically after hours” by FLDS “volunteers”, in which all students participate. Then journalists seeking information about what is going on are turned away with excuses. Still no concerns, right?
Boy, Warren Jeffs was stupid to set up that FLDS compound in Pringle SD. If he had the foresight to set it up in Minnesota, the liberal elites here would have surely helped him fund it through education tax dollars.
“See with Bachmann being the boogeywoman and all I’m not sure if this is a “boy cried wolf” thing again or if its true. You know like her being the female anti-Christ and other whacko things I’ve read about her here.”
Bachmann’s religion states that the Papacy is the anti-Christ. I haven’t heard anyone call Michelle the anti-Christ, though it doesn’t sound like that unreasonable of a proposition. The thing with the anti-Christ label is, you can hang it on whatever or whomever you choose, and probably make a pretty good case for it.
“So 4 blahs, you seem to unconcerned that TIZA is receiving state funding?”
Read what I say. Dont put words in my mouth and dont assume.
“4blahs says:
April 9th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Public schools shouldnt be promoting ANY religion. Ive said that hundreds of times.”
“I don’t want the tax dollars I pay for education to be spent on religious education of any kind.”
I echo this sentiment 100%.
So then 4blahs you agree that Katherine has done our community a great service in exposing this information that the Strib’s news department has to date ignored as a concern?
“I don’t want the tax dollars I pay for education to be spent on religious education of any kind.”
AMEN!
Whoops! Sorry :)
Tiny, I can actually cite where I read that Congresswoman Bachmann was embroiled in controversy over starting a charter school with religious overtones…
“In 1993, Bachmann joined with other parents in Stillwater to open New Heights Charter School, the first K-12 charter school in the nation… In Minnesota, charter schools receive public tax money as tax-exempt nonprofits, and are overseen by a public school district. The oversight of New Heights soon encountered problems. Conflicts arose when many parents and the school district questioned if money from public tax dollars was going towards injecting Christianity into the curriculum. Minnesota state law prohibits charter schools from using taxpayers’ money for teaching religiously motivated courses. Parents charged Bachmann with trying to set up classes on Creationism and advocating “something called ‘12 Christian principles’ be taught, very much like the 10 Commandments.” Bachmann and the board of directors also refused to allow the in-school screening of the Disney film Aladdin, feeling that it endorsed magic/witchcraft and promoted paganism. ”
This I copy-pasted from Wikipedia (I know some of ya’ll won’t like that) but it cites an October 2006 City Pages cover article, which I also recall reading. While I recognize that the City Pages doesn’t necessarily cleave to a better journalistic standard than Fox news, that’s my source. I welcome anyone who can refute its veracity.
“So then 4blahs you agree that Katherine has done our community a great service in exposing this information that the Strib’s news department has to date ignored as a concern?”
Yay for KK. Now if she would do the same thing when it comes to other religions in public school we’d be getting some where.
The second part makes no sense to me. Isnt KK a Strib employee?
Yay for KK - mega ditto.
KK is a periodic columnist, not a regular employee, certainly not of the news department, and she has nothing at all to do with the editorial pages… as so she told me.
No religious schools of any type should receive tax dollars.
The funny part is, If Katherine and Acers99 had their way, and Christian schools could get tax dollars, or if a voucher system was implemented, then these Muslims schools would also be allowed to operate using tax money.
The simple answer is no tax dollars for religious promotion, period.
“as so she told me.”
Oh goody.
Acers,
that was about as perfect a post as I’ve ever read.
I’d like to see one of you Islam apologists curse before a Muslim using Allah as readily you do the Christian God. I suspect you wouldn’t have the guts to because you know you have a lot higher chance of having a knife stuck in your throat.
And 4blahs, I generally agree with you that religion does not belong in public school, except as non-indoctrinational comparative study.
I had a great experience learning about Judaism for the first time in 5th grade in a Minneapolis public school one day many years ago. And I took an elective course in comparative religions in a Burnsville high school many years afterwards. I hope this is still possible. It was informative and non-religious.
“KK is a periodic columnist, not a regular employee”
Define regular? She has this blog everyday. She writes more than one column a week. She gets paid by the Strib, unless this is pro bono. She broke the news of this school. Seems to me she brought to light a news story while acting as a regualr strib employee. But I guess that wouldnt fit into any liberal conspiracy theories.
Comparative studies isnt promotion. I said promotion. If a comparative religions course is an elective, fine with me.
“I’d like to see one of you Islam apologists curse before a Muslim using Allah as readily you do the Christian God. I suspect you wouldn’t have the guts to because you know you have a lot higher chance of having a knife stuck in your throat.”
Boogie Boogie!!!
4blahs, yes KK told me vai e-mail, because I inquired. So what. I was wondering how she could survive at the Strib being so out of place.
4blahs, why don’t you e-mail her and ask?
From the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church (Michelle Bachman’s church) website under the section “This We Believe”:
6. We reject the teaching that Christians should look for one individual to arise in the end times as the great Antichrist. The characteristics of the Antichrist as presented in Scripture have been and are being fulfilled in the institution of the papacy (2 Thessalonians 2:4-10). We reject the opinion that the identification of the papacy with the Antichrist was merely a historical judgment valid only at the time of the Reformation.
“4blahs, why don’t you e-mail her and ask?”
Its obvious to me she is a regular employee in the way I understand the word regular. She works for the strib, is a regular columnist. She broke a story. Thats it. Nothing to inquire about. Religion doesnt belong in school. KK just doesnt seem to care about all religions, just Islam.
You would think Ms. Katherine would be more unhappy with Michelle Bachman and her religion, than with some little Muslim kids who are praying out in Inver Grove Heights.
salient,
I would be equally cancerned about my safety is I went to the FLDS compound in rural SD and loudly insulted the prophet Warren Jeffs. In fact I wouldn’t do so if well paid, even with extensive body armor.
Religious fundamentalists of all stripes are potentially dangerous. The biggest problem with radical Islam is that its advocates control a substantial portion of the globe’s energy resources. Imagine if under Warren Jeffs’ Texas compound, the greatest oil find of the century were discovered and Jeffs could buy off politicians and entire countries as he wanted to promote his interests. The FLDS would no longer be a local troublesome sect but a potential destabilizer of all of modern civilization.
“Boogie Boogie!!!”
I’m sure Salman Rushdie thinks it’s a joke too… moron.
Oh, and leland, thing is WELS members don’t strap bombs to themselves and walk into the Vatican to blow up the Pope.
Wow… KK’s blog just made the top of the drudgereport.com’s page. This story is getting some notice being listed there.
For now… No opinion from me. I just like reading everyone elses thoughts. Good stuff on here. Here’s to more snow this weekend!
“I’m sure Salman Rushdie thinks it’s a joke too… moron.”
Okay Mr. Dumb@ss. You said, “I’d like to see one of you Islam apologists curse before a Muslim using Allah as readily you do the Christian God.”
As if I took Allah’s name in vain in front of any Muslim, presumably one in MN since thats where I live, Id have a knife in my neck. You didnt say write a book critical of Islam and be punished to death by the Ayatollah. Moron.
“Its obvious to me she is a regular employee” - 4blahs
Of course it is best in protecting one’s assumptions and prejudices to never ask questions.
Acers, no doubt extremists who believe they are above the law are wrong. The difference between Warren Jeffs and radical Muslims are Jeffs doesn’t send his members out to public squares with a death wish to take out innocent people. Nor does he have millions of members who want to see the West die.
“Oh, and leland, thing is WELS members don’t strap bombs to themselves and walk into the Vatican to blow up the Pope.”
Ahhh, I see…….so you think they are teaching those little kids to be suicide bombers?…. hmmm……Check under your bed, I think the Muslim Boogieman is hiding there. If he isn’t there, he is hiding in the deep recesses of your mind (but very real of course, wink, wink).
“Jeffs doesn’t send his members out to public squares with a death wish to take out innocent people. Nor does he have millions of members who want to see the West die.”
If left uncheck by the law he would become more arrogant and selfulfilling of his own prophecy and one day would send his brainwashed followers out to do his evil bidding.
“As if I took Allah’s name in vain in front of any Muslim, presumably one in MN since thats where I live, Id have a knife in my neck.”
There’s the rub. I imagine you have no problem cursing in front of Christians or wrting a book condemning them and their God. You know you can because they’re not inclined to kill you for it. Now, I bet you’d loathe to curse using the name of Allah before a Muslim because:
a) you want to show how big you are by showing your respect for diversity
b) you probably would have an underlying fear of the consequence
b) you’re a hypocrite
salient, you correct.
As abhorrent as the FLDS is to people who respect the rights of women and children in society, it does not approach the corrosiveness of radical Islam.
Jeffs sought seclusion from broader society, not public expansion through proselytizing. Mohammed clearly sought conquest and domination as a nomadic Arab warlord likely would. I find it striking that the FLDS finds almost universal revulsion in the press here while a more dangerous Islamism seems to be getting close to a free pass.
PS
If left uncheck by the law he would become more arrogant and selfulfilling of his own prophecy and one day would send his brainwashed followers out to do his evil bidding.
WHAT!?
So what you are saying - if he does not do it now - he will in the future?
What is this “The Minority Report”
“WHAT!?
So what you are saying - if he does not do it now - he will in the future?
What is this “The Minority Report””
Yes, the minnority of one. Whats your point big mouth.
“If left uncheck by the law he would become more arrogant and selfulfilling of his own prophecy and one day would send his brainwashed followers out to do his evil bidding.”
Holy Smokes! Listen to you people! What in the world do you think Islam has done to countless nummbers of people?! The statement above is why thousands of people have died from terrorism during the last ten years in the name of Islam!
“However, JonR does not have any problem imposing HIS beliefs on the entire body politic through the judicial process!!!”
Wow…Impressive. I didn’t know that JonR was a Judge.
PS
Yes, the minnority of one. Whats your point big mouth.
Wow - only took you one post to mud sling.
Just so you are clear - I was refering to how you are punishing someone now for the crimes they may commit in the future.
I guess you like to pick and chose your constitutional provisions.
sanchez, I suspect you are right. If Jeffs were embraced by liberal elites as Islamist currently are in offering desireable diversity, I suspect he might find advancement in his following and a corresponding self-confidence. But given what we know about FLDS, it is unlikely this would result in bombers committing mass murder in shopping malls. He would instead send squads of thugs to abduct throngs of our girls for their wives. So which is worse?
I select none of the above.
GHS
Wow…Impressive. I didn’t know that JonR was a Judge.
Never said he was a judge and never implied it neither. If you inferred it, I apologize for not being clearer.
Let me try again….JonR, EBF and GHS want to impose THEIR beliefs on the entire body politic through the use of activist judges in the judical process and avoid the proper way to change laws through the use of the legislative process - i.e. the majority will of the people.
“Just so you are clear - I was refering to how you are punishing someone now for the crimes they may commit in the future.”
Jeffs is being punished by what he has done in the past and his followers are being punished for what they are doing presently.
And If they were allowed to continue at their leasure of manipulating women and children for sex and marriage who knows how far they would go. This is my point.
“I guess you like to pick and chose your constitutional provisions.”
No I don’t.
I figured I’d mudsling right off the bat before you start yaking and talking down on me about your indepth knowledge of LAW and the Constitution. That’s what makes you a bigmouth.
“He would instead send squads of thugs to abduct throngs of our girls for their wives. So which is worse?”
thugs then bombs. You don’t know that he wouldn’t. I say jail the crazies, left, right and in between.
and execute every god damned lawyer that wants to make a buck defending them.
“I imagine you have no problem cursing in front of Christians or wrting a book condemning them and their God.”
If I feel like cursing, the cult of choice of those around me is irrelevent. As far as the book, I wouldn’t waste my time writing a book about fairy tales, the Grimm brothers did a pretty god job of it already.
“And If they were allowed to continue at their leasure of manipulating women and children for sex and marriage who knows how far they would go”
Female genital mutilation maybe?
“Bachmann and the board of directors also refused to allow the in-school screening of the Disney film Aladdin, feeling that it endorsed magic/witchcraft and promoted paganism.”
Michelle, you sexy thing, come for a wild ride with me on my magic carpet.
Last night I held Aladdin’s lamp
And so I wished that I could stay
Before the thing could answer me
Well, someone came and took the lamp away
I looked around, a lousy candle’s all I found
Well, you don’t know what we can find
Why don’t you come with me little girl
On a magic carpet ride
Well, you don’t know what we can see
Why don’t you tell your dreams to me
Fantasy will set you free
Close your eyes girl
Look inside girl
Let the sound take you away
“and execute every god damned lawyer”
Did you mean “every allah d***** lawyer”
Wow…People are doing enough Bachmann Bashing without my help.
Just to be clear, I have no problems with Michele Bachmann being Christian. Cause, guess what, I’m Christian too. I do have problems with the generalizing statements she’s made against people in the GLBT community and especially comments about GLBT families.
And come on…she deserves flack for her “workingest” commment. That has nothing to do with her being Christian.
PS
Jeffs is being punished by what he has done in the past and his followers are being punished for what they are doing presently.
But that is not what you posted - you posted about future acts.
And If they were allowed to continue at their leasure of manipulating women and children for sex and marriage who knows how far they would go. This is my point.
Well you are right that was your point. He cannot and nobody shoudl be prosecuted for acts they have not commited yet.
No I don’t.
Sure you do. You not only want him guilty for the things he’s done but you want him guilty for the things YOU think he might do in the future.
I figured I’d mudsling right off the bat before you start yaking and talking down on me about your indepth knowledge of LAW and the Constitution. That’s what makes you a bigmouth.
You have proven you don’t know the law or Constitution - innocent until proven guilty and only guilty for actual acts that you have done. So the best strategy for you is to mudsling.
“Of course it is best in protecting one’s assumptions and prejudices to never ask questions.”
Lets see, she does work for the paper every day and they pay her. Yep , youre right she isnt a regular employee.
It’s amazing how you clowns end up going after Bachmann. Nothing like losers in an argument deflecting to another topic.
PS
and execute every god damned lawyer that wants to make a buck defending them.
Yup - you’d like to pick and choose what provision of the Constitution.
“a) you want to show how big you are by showing your respect for diversity
b) you probably would have an underlying fear of the consequence
b) you’re a hypocrite”
Um, no no and no.
I have no desire to kiss your ass as a christian or theirs as muslims. I dont follow either religion. No religion in public schools, period. Say and print whatever you want about Allah or god, I dont care.
“Let me try again….JonR, EBF and GHS want to impose THEIR beliefs on the entire body politic through the use of activist judges in the judical process and avoid the proper way to change laws through the use of the legislative process - i.e. the majority will of the people.”
Hmmm…so people in Boston are being forced to marry someone of the same sex? Wow…I must have missed the media coverage on that one.
AND
So, if “MAJORITY RULES” then I guess we are getting civil unions.
——-
www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_abcpost_civil_unions_abor.php
November 08, 2007
Additional results from the recent ABC News/Washington Post national survey (story, results) of 1,131 adults (conducted 10/29 through 11/1) finds:
* 55% of Americans think homosexual couples should “be allowed to form legally recognized civil union, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritence and pension coverage;”
42% think they should not.
———–
“I find it striking that the FLDS finds almost universal revulsion in the press here while a more dangerous Islamism seems to be getting close to a free pass.”
Myth. I have no trouble finding revulsion of Islam on a daily basis. Extremist Muslims are revolting, but to say they get a free pass is a total lie.
Will you still feel the same about “majority rule” when some other race or religion is the majority?
“Exactly what I feel about how Ellison is treated. Come to think of it I seem to remember that you’ve thrown Ellison the Muslim Boogieman under the bus once or twice.”
No now this Mark I have been very careful not to do. Attack his politics but I don’t think I’ve done the association thing. I may have said the reason he got elected was so Fruitcakes could tell their west and east coast friends and say “We are first”, and look at us.
Now your dare2 thats a different story.
Markunt face of ideas says-
“You have proven you don’t know the law or Constitution - innocent until proven guilty and only guilty for actual acts that you have done. So the best strategy for you is to mudsling.”
“Yup - you’d like to pick and choose what provision of the Constitution.”
Yes I have admit that I don’t know much if anything about constitutional law. I know DUI law thats about it.
Now that I have admitted it I think we can take that off your table of attack Items to pick and drill on with your hot air and move on.
That one dude ( Elickson ) had done far more for the party and was in line for that seat. You know and I know why he got the nomination.
GHS
Hmmm…so people in Boston are being forced to marry someone of the same sex? Wow…I must have missed the media coverage on that one.
That doesn’t even make sense. Please stick to the discussion and try not to post hyperbole and rhetoric.
Since you apparently need me to be even clearer.
Let me try again….JonR, EBF and GHS want to impose THEIR belief that same-sex marriage is guaranteed by the US Constitution on the entire body politic through the use of activist judges in the judical process and avoid the proper way to change laws through the use of the legislative process - i.e. the majority will of the people.
So, if “MAJORITY RULES” then I guess we are getting civil unions.
I hope we do - through the use of the legislative process!!
Come on Tiny. You’ve associated him with Islam plenty.
Shrimp, using polls as a means of law creating is a canard. We elect a legislators to establish laws not by polls, but by the fact people are entrusting them to do what is right. Sometimes (more like frequently) “the people” are wrong.
GHS
Will you still feel the same about “majority rule” when some other race or religion is the majority?
That is how the democratic process and majority rule works. So yes I would feel the same way.
“It’s amazing how you clowns end up going after Bachmann. Nothing like losers in an argument deflecting to another topic.”
The topic was publicly funded religious schools. Michelle, apparently tried to start one.
PS
Now that I have admitted it I think we can take that off your table of attack Items to pick and drill on with your hot air and move on.
Sure we can move on from that fact - just as long as you don’t advocate subverting provisions of the constitution.
Markunt face of ideas says-
“That is how the democratic process and majority rule works. So yes I would feel the same way.”
I wish I had a college degree so “I” could also state the obvious. God what boring know it all no nothing pig.
“I have no desire to kiss your ass as a christian or theirs as muslims.”
You don’t have to worry about me. As for Muslims give it another ten years, they won’t give you the option.
This was a sub teacher. I hardly think she qualifies as a good source. Again, misleading people, Katherine?
“This was a sub teacher. I hardly think she qualifies as a good source. Again, misleading people, Katherine?”
A good source. What???? She’s a witness for christ sake.
The main problem of Islamism in modern society has nothing to do with a fundamental view of Muslims that most non-Muslims can agree with:
The equality of all before a solitary single God (Allah). Even if you reject the idea of Allah, one can subscribe to the idea that all humans are created equal. Fine.
No problem there, until one starts to examine the Koran and the Hadith more closely. Muhammad was an Arab warlord, and sought the bounty, power, and domination fo women that military conquest could provide. But Muhammad wanted even more. He saw beyond the potential of material gains, just as L Ron Hubbard more recently did, in creating a religious belief system, of which he would of course be the sole prophet.
Muhammad expropriated key elements of Judaism and Christianity, which were well established in his day, ignored those which contained moral barriers against him most base human desires, and combined this with mystic beliefs in the Arab Moon God. Then he proclaimed himself as the one true prophet of (this Frankenstein monster) God. He advanced his desire of domination aggressively with the sword, not gentle persuasion, and this became the principal mode of Islamic expansion.
Should anyone familiar with this history be surprised by public beheadings? Terror attacks against non-Muslims? Or the wanton murder of young girls who refuse the orders of their Muslim fathers?
Wake up people!
“This was a sub teacher. I hardly think she qualifies as a good source.”
Why?
If I go into a school for one day, see something I don’t understand or do not agree with, and make statements to a reporter, I am hardly a source from the school. The headline “Teacher breaks wall of silence” connotes that the teacher works at the school. A sub is not a good source.
“Say and print whatever you want about Allah or god, I dont care.”
How about a film about women and Islam? Worked well for Theo van Gogh.
“She’s a witness for christ sake”
Um, I think you meant for Muhammad’s sake.
bdaniel367 says; “This was a sub teacher. I hardly think she qualifies as a good source. Again, misleading people, Katherine?”
But we sure do believe every disgruntled employee.
You guys love your Studies, your Experts and disgruntled employees. But here because you don’t like the message you don’t like the source.
Believe me, if there were religion being forced on people in the public school, I’d be fighting it. It irks me enough that our district-wide meetings are held in a church (cause it can accommodate our entire district staff and it’s freely offered by the church).
The article, however, does not say it WAS a prayer service. Just KK’s slant on it.
In the article, it states there was an assembly. Who said it was a regular occurrence or even a religious event? The transcript of the emails say it wasn’t, so who do we believe?
It also states “Before the assembly, she says she was told, her duties would include taking her fifth-grade students to the bathroom, four at a time, to perform ‘their ritual washing.’” If the elementary kids need to do this for their own purposes and she was told to escort them for their own safety, how is this any different than “regular” teachers escorting elementary kids to the loo?
It might well be what she said it was, but quoting her as a source and as a teacher at the school is misleading.
Sounds like the sub made some very good observations about this being part of their normal curriculum, non-voluntary, part of the normal schoolday. Certainly not enough to shut the school down, but maybe enough to look into it further?
Tiny, I don’t believe everyone who tells me something. I look into more before making a decision, especially if the employee is disgruntled.
That being said, find something new than using the “you guys” generalization. All sides have “you guys” and I don’t see how questioning a sub is taking a position.
bdaniel367 I bet you’ve quoted a guy who didn’t get the promotion and has an ax to grind as a creditable source.
Thats a safe bet I know it. But here… in this case we question the source….
Deano, THAT I would agree with… just not an entire column with this ONE source.
(1 Sam. 18) 6When the men were returning home after David had killed [Goliath] the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines and lutes. 7As they danced, they sang: “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.”
King David, important heroic figure of both Jews and Christians. This passage was prior to David becoming King. Once he became King, that’s when the killing really started.
If you want to read about carnage, read the Bible. It’s a real bloodbath.
I haven’t quoted anyone as I am not a reporter, and I don’t use sources for my research paper that are not credible. I teach fallacious logic and reasoning as well as research skills. It’s a pet peeve of mine when people use sources that are not credible or use fallacious logic. I probably shouldn’t read this blog or column, but I kinda like getting pissed by what KK does.
“….fallacious logic and reasoning….”
The heart and soul of the blog. Don’t dis it, brother.
“She’s a witness for christ sake”
Um, I think you meant for Muhammad’s sake.
+
I’d like to see one of you Islam apologists curse before a Muslim using Allah as readily you do the Christian God.
For Chirssakes, dude, it’s not the same thing.
when (the vast majority of) Americans say things like “for chirst’s sake” or “godda##it”, they are not doing it to insult devout christians or their god. they are expressing themselves through vulgar vernacular. as America is a mostly Christian country with a mostly Christian history, it’s second nature, just like saying “s#it”.
for your non-muslim, been-here-at-least-a-few-generations (or immigrated from a Christian country) American, it is totally unnatural to say “for muhammad’s sake” UNLESS they are trying to make some kind of ulterior point, mainly to anger PC persons or devout Muslims.
also, in the name of perspective, i’ll bet there are lot some places in the US where a Muslim (especially in obvious garb) would get killed for walking around saying “Jesus was a baby raper”. I wouldn’t feel sorry for him, but i’m sure it could happen.
My daughter was a teacher for this school. She locked up her classroom one evening when she left. The next day she came to school, opened her classroom and sitting on her desk was a football with the word “bomb” written on it. Those that think this school is okay!!! Tell me would this type of incident be tolerated in a regular public school? The school was being talked to by the state, they were asking her questions (my daughter). The head of this school went so far as to tell my daughter that would not let them (the state dept) kill her…Another one for all of you; is many of the so called staff will not allow themselves to be in photos for the school. My daughter is not a muslim..She had to wear specific clothing that did not exspose her arms, or her feet or her legs….Would this type of requirement fly in our regular public schools? I would venture to say not! The Teachers Union and ACLU would have a field day. Also, those of you support this, I hope you also support prayer in public schools, christmas programs with Jesus songs, standing and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to our United States Flag. If you do not support a publicly funded church school by your taxes, then stand up and tell your state government offcials.
“That being said, find something new than using the “you guys” generalization.”
Alright
Youz guys love your Studies, your Experts and disgruntled employees. But here because you don’t like the message you don’t like the source.
“It’s a pet peeve of mine when people use sources that are not credible or use fallacious logic.”
Man I know..especially like C.N.N. and N.B.C. And those nasty websites Gezzzz
“It’s a pet peeve of mine when people use sources that are not credible or use fallacious logic.”
Oh to when like the Today show has those “Shaded Faces” guys on…”Bush did this and Bush did that.” Then you go over to like MOVEON or C.N.N. and there it is presented as fact.
Don’t Ya hate that.
MOI writes, Let me try again….JonR, EBF and GHS want to impose THEIR beliefs on the entire body politic through the use of activist judges in the judical process and avoid the proper way to change laws through the use of the legislative process - i.e. the majority will of the people.
I know you are openly hostile to the concept, but every American has the right to ask a court to overturn a law on constitutional grounds. Judges do have that authority. Or have the rules changed?
MOI writes, So if the majority of US citizens want a marriage to be between a man and a woman then that is what a marriage is defined as in the US. Remember ALL laws are derived through the majority will of the public - whether through a direct or republican democratic process.
Just because the “majority” of the people support a particular law does not make that law just and/or constitutional. Furthermore, I, unlike Bachmann, have never put forth my positions based upon religous beliefs, which is what Bachmann has done.
As for “activist judges,” those are simply code words used by right-wing, Christian exteremists who want judges to hand down decisions baed upon their theology, rather than the law. Racists used the same tactic, but the phrase was “states’ rights.”
Now for Bachmann. While I rarely agree with leland8, his quote from the WELS web site was correct. What he failed to quote, though, was that the same web site states that the prayers of anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ (i.e., Jews, Hindus, etc.) are “vain babblings to false gods.” I wonder what the Jews in Bachmann’s district think of that. Also, when this issue came to light just before the last election, Bachmann denied her church’s teaching regarding the papacy. Thus, she either lied or knows very little about her church’s teachings. When I directly emailed KK about these facts, she did not respond and has yet to publically challenge Bachmann on the issue. (Which is very surprising as KK is a Catholic.)
Now, back to my original comments regarding TIZA. Why doesn’t the Department of Education place a state inspector in the school on a permanent, daily basis to ensure compliance with state law?
You know I have sat back and waited and waited, but to no avail. I have read all the garbage by KK and all her little
bigot minions (my apology to those enlightened thinkers such as “bdaniel367″), so now it is time to set the record straight.
I just about wrote when KK ranted about the concession made to the Muslims
concerning footbaths.
Who do you morons thinks get the most concessions? The Muslims, I KNOW not. Why do you think public schools do not have school on Sunday. The total irony and hypocrisy is that Sunday
isn’t even the Christian holy day of rest. I remember the statement “remember the Sabbath and keep it holy”. For those of you with nothing between the ears, SATURDAY is the Sabbath!!!
What is the basis for students in public schools getting a week off (or whatever) for Christmas or Easter - again to help you out - they are CHRISTIAN holidays!
Why can’t you learn to “live and let live?”
I have lived and worked overseas for the last 7 years in countries dominated by Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims. In each case, they could not have been nice and more tolerant of me being a Christian. I am sad to say that the Christian religion is the most intolerant religion in the world. NO other religion condemns nonbelievers to damnation to the degree that Christians do.
If it weren’t for Christianity, America would never have been founded.
i bet muslims are all confused about the whole jeffs debacle. to many of them its the status quo. young girl forced into marriage with some already married old slob and then sexually abused. we dont hear the liberal regressives moan about pologymy in islam. that might be offensive. we have to learn to understand them and their barbaric backwards culture.
we have some old loser like larry king burning on air minutes about the so-called shocking revelations concerning at most one thousand people but nothing how its a societal norm amongst a billion or so pseudo-neandrathals.
Looks like I missed out on some good discussion. I’ll try to answer a few questions that came my way during my absence today.
Evil can you explain to me why others don’t see it as you do.
Sorry, I cannot explain it. To me it seems very clear that the best way to protect freedom of religion for everyone is to make sure that the government stays neutral about religion.
Isn’t there a Gay Republican group you can join?
The Log Cabin Republicans? Sorry, supporting the separation of church and state makes one a patriot, not a Republican (and I’m not saying that there aren’t patriotic Republicans!).
Actually, there is one part of your comment I don’t agree on, that’s where you say “Having said that, students and faculty should be allowed to practice their religions in a private, non-distracting way while at school.” I’m really not comfortable having religion in the school period.
You have to remember that the First Amendment of our nation’s Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis mine). I don’t think it’s realistic to expect religious people never to say a prayer between classes (or before that big final exam), or to expect a teacher not to say grace before she eats lunch. I see no problem (and no constitutional issues) as long as it’s private and non-disruptive (which means that you can’t hold a teacher and class hostage for fifty minutes while you pray loudly to your deity).
Hi EBF.
Hello, salient thought! It’s been a while! I hope you are well.
“If you want to read about carnage, read the Bible. It’s a real bloodbath.”
or you could just read about daily terrorist attacks committed in the name of allah. alot more bloody and contemporary dontcha think le8?? or is this le7 or 6 tonight ??
JonR
I know you are openly hostile to the concept, but every American has the right to ask a court to overturn a law on constitutional grounds. Judges do have that authority.
No I am not openly hostile to the concept nor am I covertly hostile to the concept. I am openly wholeheartedly for the concept. (BTW – I will bet $1000 tiny blog buck you (JonR) do not know where that concept came from.).
In fact, I have never openly stated that I am hostile to the courts overturning a law on constitutional grounds. Quit putting words in my mouth. I challenge you to prove your allegation, cite my post where I have openly stated I am hostile to that concept or do you not have the personal responsibility to actually prove true something you so callously post.
In addition, please note the words on constitutional grounds in your post. In order for a judge to overturn a law on constitutional grounds, there must be actual constitutional grounds. NO WHERE in the US Constitution or its amendments is there an enumerated right to marry a person of the same sex! Therefore if a judge finds a right for same sex marriage, he CANNOT be finding it based on the US Constitution.
Just because the “majority” of the people support a particular law does not make that law just and/or constitutional.
NO but it takes either a majority of the people directly or a majority of their elected officials to make federal law or an amendment to the US Constitution. So if the majority wants something and they vote for it directly or through their elected officials it can become law. Furthermore, if the majority wants to pass a law that is unconstitutional, the majority can go through the process to have the US Constitution amended either directly or through their elected officials and then the law would not be unconstitutional.
Furthermore, I, unlike Bachmann, have never put forth my positions based upon religious beliefs, which is what Bachmann has done.
As long as a belief is not an actual religious belief (for example – there is a law you must be a Christian), it doesn’t matter what inspired the secular belief. And yes the concept we are talking about – the government recognition of a union between two people - is a secular belief! You believe that a marriage can be between two people of the same sex and Bachmann believes a marriage is between a man and a woman. Neither area a religious belief.
As for “activist judges,” those are simply code words used by right-wing, Christian extremists who want judges to hand down decisions based upon their theology, rather than the law.
FALSE. I have seen the ACLU use it and the gun control lobby, too; two very left wing organizations. You are correct, however, that ‘activist judges’ do hand down decisions based upon their own beliefs rather than the law. Like the belief that there are implied ‘privacy rights’ in the Constitution. Privacy rights are not in the Constitution, judges ruled that they are implied in the Constitution. They made laws based on their own beliefs – that’s judicial activism.
Racists used the same tactic, but the phrase was “states’ rights.”
FALSE AGAIN. “States’ right” is about the issue of the balance of power between the federal gov’t and the States. For you to connect states rights with racism is blatantly misleading. States’ rights is the concern that a central Federal government should not overpower the states. You remember the Bill of Rights, don’t ya?. While that was passed because the states were concerned with States’ rights. Guess you think that the people who got the Bill of Rights passed are racists too since that is the reason they gave for the Bill of Rights to be ratified was states’ rights.
Once again JonR posts false, misleading, and fallacious rhetoric on topics he shows us he knows very little about. Since today’s topic is about schools, Thank God JonR does not teach US government studies.
EBF
You have to remember that the First Amendment of our nation’s Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis mine). I don’t think it’s realistic to expect religious people never to say a prayer between classes (or before that big final exam), or to expect a teacher not to say grace before she eats lunch. I see no problem (and no constitutional issues) as long as it’s private and non-disruptive (which means that you can’t hold a teacher and class hostage for fifty minutes while you pray loudly to your deity).
EBF your conclusion was correct - a student can pray by themselves or with a group of students as long as they are not disruptive.
However, your reasoning as to why - “Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” - was incorrect.
The reason why students are allowed to pray in school by themselves or with other students is based on Freedom of Speech not Religion.
Nice try - half credit.
MOI-
What is your basis for that? Is there a court ruling? I would think that either clause would give a student that right.
“MOI-
What is your basis for that? Is there a court ruling? I would think that either clause would give a student that right.”
Markunt face of idea’s basis is her own self unrelenting choke hold of life that her mother laid out for her. for crapping out loud. she has the snatch integrety of a kangaroo.
All of this debate-club hand wringing serves as proof many still do not understand the corrupt and deceptive nature of Islam.
Please acquaint yourself with the Islamic practice of taqiyya”:
Taqiyya is “falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur’an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart.”
“Like many Islamic practices, taqiyya was formed within the context of the culture of Arab tribalism, expansionary warfare, Bedouin raiding and inter-tribal conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse, confound and divide ‘the enemy’.”
Chat, debate and pontificate all you want, lying and deception are tenants of their religion!
It is time we eliminate the Islamic fungus from THIS “holy land”…America.
Katherine has done a great service to America, and for our Constitution. There is no question that these Muslim fraudsters have been busy duping sleepy civil servants who job it is to ensure that the taxpayer does not — EVER — fund religion, in school or elsewhere. It is simply NOT permissable, whether undertaken by Mormons, Mammonites or Muslims. Sorry, but that’s America. ** More simply put: public education? public purse. private education? private purse. Although Islam is a particularly backward religion, especially in regard to the rights and roles of women, no religious practises may be funded by the taxpayer. None. Zero. Zip.
It’s America, guys. We don’t fund religion here, no matter how looney. Mormon, Muslim, or Mammon, it’s all the same: illegal.
Congratulations to Katherine for excellent work in her column, and in her exposé. Islamic fraudsters have taken advantage of lazy civil servants, but no longer. The state may fund Wahabbism in Saudi Arabia, but not here, no more than it may fund Judaism or Wicca.
If you believe that the state should pay for religion, I recommend a long vacation in those great democracies where they do: Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea. Otherwise? No here, not ever.
As before: public education? public purse. private education? private purse. It’s a simple concept that has served us well for centuries. Get used to it.
was shocked by this story. However, when I started doing more research about the school and what was written to the editor in response to KK 1st article about the school, I found a response written by the lead teacher who worked at the school for three years. I think we need first to make sure that such a teacher is working at the school. May be the school administration just came up with such a response claiming that it was written by the lead teacher. If it is true, there will be something fishy here. By the way, I think such a response should have been published in the papers, not online only. Here is the link
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/16687586.html
As a lead teacher at Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), I am saddened and confused by inflammatory statements I have recently read about TIZA.
Based on three years of experience working closely with staff at TIZA, including the director Asad Zaman, I have experienced firsthand this school’s dedication to student achievement and well being.
Part of my job responsibility is to conduct teacher observations. I have never witnessed any religious instruction during school or any pressure to adhere to particular religious beliefs. In fact, I am Christian and have always felt completely welcome at TIZA.
I have witnessed excellent teachers from different religious and cultural backgrounds striving to improve their instruction and student achievement in reading and writing English as well as in math, science, social studies, physical education and Arabic.
I have witnessed test scores of students steadily increase as a result. In fact last year, TIZA had one of the highest math proficiency rates in the state. Reading rates were also high, even though most students are still learning the English language.
That is what is really happening at TIZA. It should be happening in more public schools.
WENDY SWANSON-CHOI, EAGAN
I think we need to think before we can jump into conclusions. Here we have the statements of two people; one who was a sub for one day and the other who is the lead teacher for three years.
Isn’t it funny that when someone brings
up a truly relevant fact such as the one brought up by “leland8″ in reference to the “carnage” inflicted by the early Christians which makes the violence by a few Muslims look like a walk in the park, nobody on this blog responds. It must be something like “blinders” over ones eyes.
So here’s some more facts for those of you who think freedom of religion is only for Christians. The biggest (by far) concession made to ANY religion is the reason why there is NO public education on Sundays. Where do you think that came from? The ironic and totally hypocritical part about that is that despite the saying “remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy” Christians don’t! For those of you who don’t know what I mean - Sunday is not the Sabbath! Another thing, why do you “think” children in public education get a vacation for Christmas
and Easter?
I have been living in many countries other than my home in Minnesota for the last 7 years and have found the Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists to be extremely warm to me even though I am a Christian. It is sad to say that Christians in general are the most by far intolerant of all the religions I have personally experienced. No other religion comes as close to condemning all other people who don’t believe the same as they do to eternal damnation.
This is amazing! I lived in China for two and a half years and experienced gross censorship on a daily basis, but certainly didn’t expect it in my own country.
I have written two comments on this blog
and the most dastardly thing in either one of them was the use of the word “bigot”. Is this what I have missed in the 7 years I have been away from the USA?
why the heck are christians not allowed to pray in schools but the muslims are getting their own schools AT THE TAX PAYERS EXPENSE!!!! this is nuts!!
oh yeah,,,i am sure they want barak HUSSEIN obama for president. i’m telling you, these muslims are insidiously creeping into our system, thats how they are,they attack OUR country, then we welcome them in, let them establish themselves all over the place, now they are creeping into the system,,you watch,,these snaeky people. we need a leader who will shut them down. this is awful. good-by america.
i work in a public school system where the principal actually allowed some muslim kids to use the teachers conference to pray during ramadam and they were washing there dirty feet in the staff restroom sink!! how gross is that!! and they lie and cheat the system. these muslim men have all these wives all over the city and they have babies all over the place, one after another AT THE TAX PAYERS EXPENSE!!! and i have students who take off for a month and come to your state and celebrate ramadam with all their muslim guy friends (and go to disney world)then come back and get allthe absences excused!!
single user01 The people here need to display their diversification halo no matter the cost.
Bunch of the phony BS.
Oh it was nice to see no local TV stations picked up on this story…but oh boy if this had been a christian school….
“As before: public education? public purse. private education? private purse. It’s a simple concept that has served us well for centuries. Get used to it.”
Exactly.
“Isn’t it funny that when someone brings
up a truly relevant fact such as the one brought up by “leland8″ in reference to the “carnage” inflicted by the early Christians which makes the violence by a few Muslims look like a walk in the park, nobody on this blog responds. It must be something like “blinders” over ones eyes.”
This has nothing to do with a publicly funded religious school. Besides, when was the last big example of Christian violence? The Crusades? Hundreds of years ago. Get some new material.
I was shocked by this story. However, when I started doing more research about the school and what was written to the editor in response to KK 1st article about the school, I found a response written by the lead teacher who worked at the school for three years. I think we need first to make sure that such a teacher is working at the school. May be the school administration just came up with such a response claiming that it was written by the lead teacher. If it is true, there will be something fishy here. By the way, I think such a response should have been published in the papers, not online only. Here is the link
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/16687586.html
As a lead teacher at Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), I am saddened and confused by inflammatory statements I have recently read about TIZA.
Based on three years of experience working closely with staff at TIZA, including the director Asad Zaman, I have experienced firsthand this school’s dedication to student achievement and well being.
Part of my job responsibility is to conduct teacher observations. I have never witnessed any religious instruction during school or any pressure to adhere to particular religious beliefs. In fact, I am Christian and have always felt completely welcome at TIZA.
I have witnessed excellent teachers from different religious and cultural backgrounds striving to improve their instruction and student achievement in reading and writing English as well as in math, science, social studies, physical education and Arabic.
I have witnessed test scores of students steadily increase as a result. In fact last year, TIZA had one of the highest math proficiency rates in the state. Reading rates were also high, even though most students are still learning the English language.
That is what is really happening at TIZA. It should be happening in more public schools.
WENDY SWANSON-CHOI, EAGAN
I think we need to think before we can jump into conclusions. Here we have the statements of two people; one who was a sub for one day and the other who is the lead teacher for three years.
jcf817
What is your basis for that? Is there a court ruling? I would think that either clause would give a student that right.
You may think that all you like but that does not make it true.
There is a long tedious history of court cases – a whole litany of cases (if you pardon the pun) – that enlightened the general public on the basis of the USSC decisions on school prayer. I don’t wish to write the necessary amount to fully explain that enlightenment. Nevertheless, I will give you a few cases so you can get started and seek out the answer to your question. Please take note that this is not a definitive writing on prayer in public schools but it should give you a quick overiew on how the USSC came to its conclusions over time.
The first cases that led to restricting prayer in public schools started with West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) and led to other cases like, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); School Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). Other cases followed in the ‘60s and ‘70s. These all involved an interplay between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. An important case that came out the litany of those cases was the case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), which is the case that gave birth to the “Lemon Test”.
These cases all but chilled prayer in public schools until the mid 80’s when the case, Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc. 482 U.S. 569 (1987), was decided by the USSC. What was interesting with this case was, instead of using the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Jews for Jesus used the Free Speech Clause for the first time. Interestingly enough, the USSC loved this approach and agreed unanimously. That led to a case more on point about school prayer, Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens 496 U.S. 226 (1990), which then led to even more cases showing that the Free Speech Clause was the factor in allowing students to pray in public schools.
There are a couple of other cases that are also important even though they do not involve school prayer. These cases test the limits on how much government can curtail the ‘free exercise’ of religious activities; Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) and Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Both are interesting reads – they involve peyote and chicken sacrifices
I hope this gives you enough to go on. Have fun!!!
“Isn’t it funny that when someone brings
up a truly relevant fact such as the one brought up by “leland8″ in reference to the “carnage” inflicted by the early Christians which makes the violence by a few Muslims look like a walk in the park, nobody on this blog responds. It must be something like “blinders” over ones eyes.”
overkill, what a nice useful idiot you must be. LOL. your saying le8’s statement regarding violence committed by people a thousand or more years ago as relevant but bombings, rapings and other various murders and atrocities committed by islamic thugs worldwide as not !!! talk about blinders HAHAHA
according to thereligionofpeace.com there have been 10880 terrorist attacks performed by the adherants to the religion of peace, since 9/11/2001. thats an average of more than 29 a week for 7 years. i bet thats more than even your most rabid christians of antiquity could have ever managed.
islamic cancer has touched practically every country on every continent, spreading violence and destruction in its wake.
‘Shrimp, using polls as a means of law creating is a canard. We elect a legislators to establish laws not by polls, but by the fact people are entrusting them to do what is right. Sometimes (more like frequently) “the people” are wrong.”
Exactly. I believe that also. It was a retort against the majority rules that someone else brought up. If we went by the majority of people in power, women wouldn’t have the right to vote, would be considered property and slavery would still be allowed.
Thank goodness there were people who fought against discrimination.
GHS
‘Shrimp, using polls as a means of law creating is a canard. We elect a legislators to establish laws not by polls, but by the fact people are entrusting them to do what is right. Sometimes (more like frequently) “the people” are wrong.”
Exactly. I believe that also. It was a retort against the majority rules that someone else brought up. If we went by the majority of people in power, women wouldn’t have the right to vote, would be considered property and slavery would still be allowed.
Thank goodness there were people who fought against discrimination.
Where do you think we live? The majority rules and always has in this country. The type of rule you are advocating is that elected officials vote the way they want without regard to the people’s opinions. That’s insane and also called an authoritative government. If we had legislatures voting the way ‘they’ thought instead of how the majority would like, the majority would vote them out and put in legislatures that voted how the majority would like.
Your examples are laughable. You need to relearn your history..
Woman got the right to vote through a Constitutional Amendment. That was passed by the majority!
The civil war was fought over slavery. After the majority won the war, the majority passed the 13th amendment to outlaw slavery.
This government of this country is OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.
Please give KK a break!!! To all of you attacking her, do not go after the messenger. You do not know what you are talking about. Our society has been bending over backwards to accommodate “intolerance”. No offense, but I know about this subject much better than most of you guys: I was born and grew up in Beirut-Lebanon and saw with my own eyes how your kind of “tolerance” brought down our society. Just like you, some of us were cowards to say things the way they are. For God’s sake, you are bringing a pimp into your house, he’s sleeping in the same bed as your wife, he’s even taking a shower with her, but because he’s telling you that nothing is going on, you want to believe him!!! Let us not be afraid, TIZA IS A MUSLIM PUBLIC SCHOOL. It is using passive-aggressive intimidation to filter attendees at the school and make it 100% Muslim. I would feel the same thing if I were to send my kid to a “PUBLIC” school were 80% are supposed to go pray for whatever other God. Imagine if on graduation day everybody was “expected” to go to a graduation mass at a public school. But because we are talking about Muslims, we’re so afraid of them. I have seen it happen in Lebanon and in Europe. Keep this mentality and let them use YOU against YOURSELVES and before you know it, they have already transformed your public school into a religious madrassa. And the best is that YOU are paying for it, and YOU helped them get there. The irony.
I am not against Islam, but I am against any type of religious fanatism. If TIZA is not doing anything wrong, then they should not be concerned about any article printed because this is their chance to publicize to other religions how great the school is and invite and accommodate other religions. Why not?
(As a side note, TIZA in Arabic stands for “her butt”).
“I am sad to say that the Christian religion is the most intolerant religion in the world. NO other religion condemns nonbelievers to damnation to the degree that Christians do.” - Overkill
This is a very ignorant statement.
Just try to establish a Christian school in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. You would soon have your head chopped off in the main square in Riyadh and your body dumped into an unmarked grave in the desert.
Try carrying into the country a personal bible or a small cross around your neck. You wouldn’t make it past the customs table. You would be hauled off into interrogation or worse.
Try having a Christmas celebration in your private residence there or even a birthday party (this is non-Islamic as well). If someone snitched to the muttawa religious police, your party would be broken up, your guests beaten, and you would be tried in a Sharia court and jailed for who knows how long.
“In addition, there’s a double standard at work here — if TIZA were a Christian school, it would likely be gone in a heartbeat.”
Not really. I don’t hear you frothing about Excell Academy for Higher Learning, a public charter sponsored by North Central Bible College and run by the “First Lady” of Mighty Fortress International Church, whose husband coincidentally is the head of the charter’s board and pastor of said church. Lots of X-tianity going on there, no expose by KK. Not surprising.
“If it passes legal muster, Minnesota taxpayers may soon find themselves footing the bill for a separate system of education for Muslims.”
I do not support public funding of any religion. I also oppose tax-exempt status for religion. However, X-tian conservatives have forced Wisconsin to foot the bill for a separate system of education for X-tians, by way of the voucher system. I don’t know why there would be so much pressure to institute a voucher system here (it comes up every session) when the purpose of it is to have publicly funded religious indoctrination. Unconstitutional, all the way (despite that erroneous Supreme Court decision).
“The majority rules and always has in this country.”
If you’re talking about the masses then all laws would be created through referendum, which would be insane.
We have a representative republic, not a true democracy. Get your facts straight.
husbands can beat disobedient wives, that gays should be executed. Sounds like Islam and Christianity have a lot in common, according the the uber followers of these religions.
salient thought
“The majority rules and always has in this country.”
If you’re talking about the masses then all laws would be created through referendum, which would be insane.
Why do you think that would that be insane? My guess is you don’t have faith in the masses. Which is an incredibily elistist attitude. The real reason why most laws are not voted on by referendun is because we would have to be voting on laws on almost a daily basis.
We have a representative republic, not a true democracy. Get your facts straight.
True we do have a representative republic. Those representatives are voted by the MAJORITY. Therefore - “The majority rules and always has in this country”
Jane
Unconstitutional, all the way (despite that erroneous Supreme Court decision).
Are you refering to Zelman v. Simmons-Harris? Could you further explain your position as best as possible on this blog?
@marketplace:
Yes, I’m referring to Zelman. I wrote an appellate brief on it in law school (before it was decided, obviously). Breyer’s and Souter’s dissents pretty much sum it up. The majority weaseled around the Lemon test [(1) A challenged statute or program must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) its “principal or primary effect” must be one that “neither advances nor inhibits religion”; and (3) it must not result in “excessive government entanglement with religion.”]. If taxing a religious establishment entangles the government so excessively that they have to be tax-exempt, I can’t see how funneling public money to religious schools isn’t even more entangling.
Breyer said, the program directs public money to “a core function of the church: the teaching of religious truths to young children.”
“Every major religion currently espouses social positions that provoke intense opposition,” wrote Souter. “Not all taxpaying Protestant citizens, for example, will be content to underwrite the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church condemning the death penalty. Nor will all of America’s Muslims acquiesce in paying for the endorsement of the religious Zionism taught in many religious Jewish schools, which combines a nationalistic sentiment in support of Israel with a deeply religious element. Nor will every secular taxpayer be content to support Muslim views on differential treatment of the sexes, or, for that matter, to fund the espousal of a wife’s obligation of obedience to her husband, presumably taught in any schools adopting the articles of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention.”
The vast majority of private schools benefiting from public money in Milwaukee are religious schools of the X-tian flavor. However, the constitutions of many states still contain some form of what are called “Blaine amendments,” barring in explicit terms the use of public funds for religious purposes. Which is exactly what vouchers do.
Minnesota Constitution, article I, sec. 16, “The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any religious or ecclesiastical ministry, against his consent;”
I tried to get to toddpeabody’s site but it just led me back to the paper, wtf?
Anyways Todd, go look for this “husbands can beat disobedient wives, that gays should be executed. Sounds like Islam and Christianity have a lot in common, according the the uber followers of these religions…” in the New Testament portion of the Bible. I bet you won’t find it. Christians are supposed to follow THAT side of the Bible.
The Qu’ran is pretty much violence-embracing from page 1, with no reprieve.
True we do have a representative republic. Those representatives are voted by the MAJORITY. Therefore - “The majority rules and always has in this country”
It is possible to win an election with a plurality. Tim Pawlenty is an example. So in Pawlenty’s case, the majority did not want him, but he was elected anyway.
So much for “majority rules.”
EBF
It is possible to win an election with a plurality. Tim Pawlenty is an example. So in Pawlenty’s case, the majority did not want him, but he was elected anyway.
There you go again not taking personal responsibility for yourself and being knowledgeable.
The definition of majority and plurality are generally considered synonmous when speaking of voting. What you are confusing yourself with is the difference between the types of majorities, simple or relative vs. absolute.
Please take personal responsibility and go learn the differences.
Jane
Thank you for your post (I know who difficult it is trying to communicate effectively in this medium)
So you don’t buy the 5-part “choice” tests?
What are your thoughts on Mueller (no establishment violation for tax breaks for educational costs)?
If a public school system is failing, what are your thoughts on what could a parent do to ensure a good education for their child?
The definition of majority and plurality are generally considered synonmous when speaking of voting.
Maybe in your world. In my world, a majority is 50% + 1. A plurality is simply the largest piece of the pie, which need not be as great as a majority.
You quibble about semantics (and I’ll research your claim later to verify its validity). The fact remains that a majority of the people did not want Tim Pawlenty elected governor.
Consider this scenario: 99 people run for an elected office. 98 of those people each get 1% of the vote. One person gets 2%. The person who got 2% “wins” because (s)he got the biggest piece of the pie. Would you still say that person got a majority?
Most people would understand that the majority was the 98% of the people who voted for someone other than the winner.
The plurality/majority scenario is exactly why some people advocate instant runoff voting (IRV). So no, moi, I do not buy your claim that a majority and a plurality are the same thing in the context of voting.
EBF
Like I posted before you are confusing yourself with the difference between “absolute majority” and “simple or relative majority”.
You don’t have to ‘buy’ my definition. First it is not my definition, and second most people share with me the same definition.
Under your scenerio, every person and news organization that said or reported Pawlenty had a ‘majority’ would be wrong.
Hmmmm - EBF wrong or everyone else wrong?……I am going with EBF wrong.
Get back to us after you have taken personal responsibility and done some research.
MOI-
Please get over the “personal responsibility” schtick with EBF. It’s getting boring.
Thanks.
Under your scenerio, every person and news organization that said or reported Pawlenty had a ‘majority’ would be wrong. Hmmmm - EBF wrong or everyone else wrong?……I am going with EBF wrong.
No, MOI, you are wrong. Here are definitions from “Webster’s American Dictionary, College Edition” (ISBN 0-375-42555-1).
plurality (in an election involving three or more candidates) the excess of votes received by the leading candidate over those received by the next candidate (distinguished from majority (emphasis added)
majority the greater part or numer; a number larger than half the total and the amount by which the greater number surpasses the remainder (distinguished from plurality (emphasis added)
EBF is entirely correct; Pawlenty has never been elected by a majority of the total votes cast in those two elections.
Please get over the “personal responsibility” schtick with EBF. It’s getting boring.
Thank you! I’d “thank God,” but I haven’t yet fasted for three days as Bachmann did before she decided to stand for election. (sarcasim here)
Damn end tags.
JonR
You also need to look up the difference between “absolute majority” and “simple or relative majority”.
The whole notion of plurality vs. majority was born from the instant run voting crowd. It is rhetoric, hyperbole or a talking point. By the way, I agree with the need for some type of IRV but I don’t agree with the rhetoric the IRV crowd spews out to try and justify their position. (like more people voted against pawlenty than for pawlenty or the distinction between plurality or majority)
Again the truth is most people see some one winning an election as having a ‘majority’ of the votes rather than a ‘plurality’ of the votes.
Answer this question JonR and EBF - since most people and every major news organization in Minnesota said or reported Pawlenty had a ‘majority’ of the votes, would they all be wrong and you and EBF be right? I don’t think so but I would like to hear your answer.
Also, how cares if more people didn’t vote for Pawlenty than did. He still won the election by the way the election was conducted. The fact is more people voted for Pawlenty than any other single candidate. That is how our elections are run.
For those who keep blowing smoke arguements… just admit that you are okay with public tax money paying for a religious public school. Say it. If you can’t, be prepared to defend yourself against nut-jobs who are going to call you racist.
Separation of church and state has been a bane of the constitution since its inception. The invocations before the start of a legislative session, the invocation by a minister before graduation ceremonies, the prayer before football/basketball games at schools, the “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, school vacations over Christmas break and Easter break. This whole concept is in essence non existent. However, as long as it is Christian terminology that’s uttered, all is overlooked. People have been fighting over this issue for years. The only thing new is the motivation behind ‘these’ allegations. Personally, I say “bring it on”. Let’s show the state that not only do we have a school that, educationally, kicks most public, private, and charter schools’ butts, but it does so by adhering to the laws that allow a school like this to exist. So I say come on in, interview our staff, watch our children. Perhaps someone will learn something about how to be successful without trying to bring down others to do so.
JonR and EBF
Both of you have failed to show some personal responsibility and research the rhetoric you are spewing out, so I did some for our readers.
In addition, since you are citing dictionary definitions, here are some more dictionary definitions:
American Heritage Dictionary
Majority: The political party, group, or faction having the most power by virtue of its larger representation or electoral strength.
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law
Majority: The group or political party whose votes predominate.
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Majority: The amount or number by which one aggregate exceeds all other aggregates with which it is contrasted.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
Synonyms: Majority, plurality, in the context of an election, poll, or other voting situation resulting in a statistically based statement, both denote an amount or number larger than some other.
Looks like EBF and JonR are wrong again.
Looks like EBF and JonR are wrong again.
No, we’re not wrong, moi. It would seem that neither are you (at least about the definition of “majority”). My only complaint is that your list of definitions is incomplete. You gave us only the definitions that fit your agenda while ignoring other equally valid definitions (the ones that show I was right).
I was incorrect about one part of my definition of “majority” – but not in the way moi says. From Wikipedia:
A majority, also known as a simple majority in the U.S., is a subset of a group that is more than half of the entire group. This should not be confused with a plurality, which is a subset having the largest number of parts. A plurality is not necessarily a majority, as the largest subset may be less than half of the entire group.
Furthermore (and this corrects my error):
A common error is to list a majority as being “one more than half” or “fifty percent plus one”. This is incorrect when there is an odd number of votes cast. When there are 51 votes cast, half is 25.5. So, only 26 votes is needed, not 26.5 votes.
Moving on….
Both of you have failed to show some personal responsibility and research the rhetoric you are spewing out, so I did some for our readers.
You didn’t give me enough time, moi. I have more to do than just sit here answering your demands. And a definition of “majority” hardly counts as “spewing rhetoric.” elle is correct that your “personal responsibility” crap is getting very old and moldy. Like its author, I imagine.
Here are some definitions of “absolute” and “simple” majority that I found (again from Wikipedia):
An absolute majority or majority of the entire membership (in American English, a supermajority voting requirement) is a voting basis which usually requires that more than half of all the members of a group (including those absent and those present but not voting) must vote in favor of a proposition in order for it to be passed. In practical terms, it may mean that abstention from voting could be equivalent to a no vote.
Absolute majority can be contrasted with simple majority which only requires a majority of those actually voting to approve a proposition for it to be enacted.
It looks my and JonR’s definitions are indeed correct, moi, as are yours. But leave it to you to pick a fight over semantics in your never-ending quest to paint bloggers you dislike as “irresponsible.”
Here are some posts moi made above that include the word “majority”:
So if the majority of US citizens want a marriage to be between a man and a woman then that is what a marriage is defined as in the US.
Excellent view on how majority will changes laws in a democracy. (I am being serious - not facetious)
Let me try again….JonR, EBF and GHS want to impose THEIR beliefs on the entire body politic through the use of activist judges in the judical process and avoid the proper way to change laws through the use of the legislative process - i.e. the majority will of the people.
That [when another race or religion is the majority] is how the democratic process and majority rule works. So yes I would feel the same way.
NO but it takes either a majority of the people directly or a majority of their elected officials to make federal law or an amendment to the US Constitution. So if the majority wants something and they vote for it directly or through their elected officials it can become law. Furthermore, if the majority wants to pass a law that is unconstitutional, the majority can go through the process to have the US Constitution amended either directly or through their elected officials and then the law would not be unconstitutional.
The majority rules and always has in this country. The type of rule you are advocating is that elected officials vote the way they want without regard to the people’s opinions. That’s insane and also called an authoritative government. If we had legislatures voting the way ‘they’ thought instead of how the majority would like, the majority would vote them out and put in legislatures that voted how the majority would like.
True we do have a representative republic. Those representatives are voted by the MAJORITY. Therefore - “The majority rules and always has in this country”
Now I will give moi the benefit of the doubt; maybe he really did mean majority to include plurality. However, I am skeptical that this would apply in the context of all of his posts today. It would seem to me that any reasonable person would have problems with too many people being elected and too many laws being passed that a clear mathematical majority did not support. I also think some of moi’s arguments would be stronger (such as the one where he says that JonR, GHS and I want to impose our beliefs) if majority meant a true mathematical majority and not a plurality. And moi must know that a supermajority (not a plurality) of the states – a minimum of 75%, or 38 out of 50 – must approve a federal constitutional amendment before it becomes law.
Here’s another theoretical example. Let’s say that 40% of people favor same-sex civil unions with all of the benefits of marriage, 30% of people favor same-sex civil unions with only some of the benefits of marriage, and 30% favor banning same-sex civil unions. In this scenario, 70% of the people oppose same-sex civil unions with full marriage-equivalent benefits – but that position has the plurality. Should same-sex civil unions with full marriage benefits become the law of the land under this scenario, moi?
Finally, it remains a fact that more people did not want Tim Pawlenty to be governor than did want him to be governor. In the mathematical sense, Pawlenty was elected by a plurality, not a majority.
MOI,
I am so impressed. First, neither your American Heritage nor your Merriam-Webster’s nor your Webster’s Revised citations reference elections. Your Random House citation confused the terms plurality and majority.
Here is a citation from Encyclodædia Britannica: The plurality system is the simplest means of determining the outcome of an election. To win, a candidate need only poll more votes than any other single opponent; he need not, as required by the majority formula, poll more votes than the combined opposition. The more candidates contesting a constituency seat, the greater the probability that the winning candidate will receive only a minority of the votes cast.
Pawlenty has never polled more than 50% of the total votes cast when he has stood for governor. Therefore, he was elected by less than 50% of the total votes cast and collected a plurality, not a majority.
Answer this question JonR and EBF - since most people and every major news organization in Minnesota said or reported Pawlenty had a ‘majority’ of the votes, would they all be wrong and you and EBF be right?
“Most people” and “every major news organization” need to consult a dictionary as they obviously do not comprehend the differences.
MOI,
I forgot a comment. I agree with you (gasp!!!) that MN needs IRV. However, I disagree with the method of “ranking” candidates.
I would prefer a much simpler system. If three or more candidates stand for an elected office and no candidate receives more than 50% of the total votes cast, the two candidates who received the most votes should stand in an IRV election.
I would also suggest this system should be implemented for every elective office in MN.
EBF
But leave it to you to pick a fight over semantics in your never-ending quest to paint bloggers you dislike as “irresponsible.”
I did not pick a fight over semantics, you and JonR did! Once again you post a revisionist history. Go back and look who was the person who first posted what majority meant and what it did not mean. I merely responded to your first posting of a limited definition of majority.
It looks my and JonR’s definitions are indeed correct, moi, as are yours.
No, we’re not wrong, moi. It would seem that neither are you (at least about the definition of “majority”). My only complaint is that your list of definitions is incomplete. You gave us only the definitions that fit your agenda while ignoring other equally valid definitions (the ones that show I was right).
You admit that there are multiple definitions of the word majority but still try to push your definition was right. No it wasn’t. A word’s definition is partly made up of how it is used in context.
Take this word for example – FAST. One meaning is “speedy”, another is “not eat” and still another is “not move” (as in hold fast). You and JonR’s argument is simply telling me in this sentence “He ran fast” is that fast meant not eat. Wrong it obviously means speedy in that sentence.
So yes you are wrong and I am right. You need to look at the context of the sentences as to how what definition of majority I was using.
Now I will give moi the benefit of the doubt; maybe he really did mean majority to include plurality. However, I am skeptical that this would apply in the context of all of his posts today.
You have already admitted and I have already proven there are multiple definitions for ‘majority’. It would seem as if you would like is a parenthetical definition next to a word with multiple definitions to declare what definition I am using. Lets see….so using my above example – “He ran fast” – You would like me to say – “He ran fast (as in ‘speedy’ not ‘not eating’)”
And a definition of “majority” hardly counts as “spewing rhetoric.”
Defining majority in the limiting way you defined it is definitely spewing rhetoric. You have an agenda for limiting the definition of the word ‘majority’. You would like two things – 1) instant run off voting and 2) to show your dislike for Pawlenty.
It would seem to me that any reasonable person would have problems with too many people being elected and too many laws being passed that a clear mathematical majority did not support.
Finally, it remains a fact that more people did not want Tim Pawlenty to be governor than did want him to be governor. In the mathematical sense, Pawlenty was elected by a plurality, not a majority.
There is your proof of your agenda.
Here’s another theoretical example. Let’s say that 40% of people favor same-sex civil unions with all of the benefits of marriage, 30% of people favor same-sex civil unions with only some of the benefits of marriage, and 30% favor banning same-sex civil unions. In this scenario, 70% of the people oppose same-sex civil unions with full marriage-equivalent benefits – but that position has the plurality. Should same-sex civil unions with full marriage benefits become the law of the land under this scenario, moi?
You theoretical example is faulty comparative logic. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Your example is NOT how we create laws. We use only a yes or nay vote for a particular proposed law to determine if that proposed law would become law. We don’t pit two or more proposed laws against each other and simaltaneously vote on them.
In contrast, in elections for potential elected officials, we do pit two or more potential elected officials against each other and simaltaneously vote on them.
Again, you have an agenda, IRV (and hating Pawlently), we get it. However, limiting the definition of the word majority is, as I have shown, wrong and a poor attempt to prove your point.
bloggers you dislike as “irresponsible.”
Once again, you try and use revisionist history, I have posted many, many times that I love my fellow human beings. I have never posted that I hate nor dislike anyone.
[Y]our “personal responsibility” crap is getting very old and moldy. Like its author, I imagine.
Once again you prove you don’t have facts, reason, and logic on your side of the argument, so you resort to name calling and mudslinging. I again implore you to take personal responsibility and admit your error, admit your alternative agendas and admit you are trying to revise history.
Lastly, you failed to answer my question, so I will post it again…. since most people and every major news organization in Minnesota said or reported Pawlenty had a ‘majority’ of the votes, would they all be wrong and you be right? I don’t think so but I would like to hear your answer. Because JonR’s answer is oh so precious. (Everyone else is wrong)
JonR
First, neither your American Heritage nor your Merriam-Webster’s nor your Webster’s Revised citations reference elections. Your Random House citation confused the terms plurality and majority.
“Most people” and “every major news organization” need to consult a dictionary as they obviously do not comprehend the differences.
Wow just wow. JonR is stating:
American Heritage is wrong
Merriam-Webster is wrong
Webster is wrong
Most people are wrong
Every major news organization is wrong.
And JonR and EBF are correct
.
Again, wow just wow.
JonR please understand that some words have multiple meanings – look to the context on how the word is being used to determine its meaning.
Pawlenty has never polled more than 50% of the total votes cast when he has stood for governor. Therefore, he was elected by less than 50% of the total votes cast and collected a plurality, not a majority.
We all know that you want everyone to use the word ‘plurality’ instead of ‘majority’ when there are 3 or more candidates, but you don’t get to decide alone how a word is used in the general population. Get over it – the word majority is synonymous with the word plurality in some situations.
Like EBF you have an agenda 1) IRV and 2) disliking Pawlenty.
@ marketplace
“So you don’t buy the 5-part “choice” tests?”
No, when religious schools are the majority of the “choice,” there is no choice.
“What are your thoughts on Mueller (no establishment violation for tax breaks for educational costs)?”
Mueller certainly indicated the direction Rehnquist was headed, but the reasoning was more intellectually honest than his later contorted argument in Zelman. And, as the MN tuition deduction is not the entire amount of tuition and the aid is to the parents, not the schools, I find it less violative of Lemon.
“If a public school system is failing, what are your thoughts on what could a parent do to ensure a good education for their child?”
First of all, I don’t accept the premise that MN’s public school system is failing. If you want to ensure that your child gets a good education, first of all, turn off American Idol and Guitar Hero and read to your kid. Volunteer in the classroom. Be involved. Encourage curiosity.
If I were monarch, I’d scrap almost all of the fruitless mandatory testing and stop labeling schools as “failing” when they don’t show continuous improvement. Continuous improvement is impossible when the population of students is constantly changing (yes, I think No Child Left Behind is a farce set up to defund public schools and break the system).
JonR
I would prefer a much simpler system. If three or more candidates stand for an elected office and no candidate receives more than 50% of the total votes cast, the two candidates who received the most votes should stand in an IRV election.
I would also suggest this system should be implemented for every elective office in MN.
That is the way it use to be for all MN offices. The primaries were designed to narrow the field down to the two top voting getting candidates and then the general election was between those two top vote getters.
Non-partisan races are still run that way (e.g. judicial office, some city elections, etc.).
However, party affilation got involved and now the primaries in partisan races are used to narrow the party’s candidates down to one and the general election is now for anyone who wants to run including each party’s choice.
I propose the political parties should hold their own (and pay for) election to determine which candidate they want to put forth in the primary.
Then the primary is for all that want to run. Then the general is for the top two vote getters in the primary.
Jane
Again I appreciate your post.
Just to be clear - my question was a hypothetical. If a public school system is failing, what are your thoughts on what could a parent do to ensure a good education for their child?”
So I was actually not stating that premise as fact but as a supposition. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I wanted to know what your solution would be if a school was failing.
In Zelman, the Cleveland schools were supposedly failing. Do you agree that they were failing? If not, why not? And, for you, what would it take for a school to be failing?
If you want to ensure that your child gets a good education, first of all, turn off American Idol and Guitar Hero and read to your kid. Volunteer in the classroom. Be involved. Encourage curiosity.
I agree. My parents preached the same philosophy (both were teachers) and I also preach that to my kids and nieces and nephews.
However, I can envision a possibility when the good being offered (the public school) is so flawed that no amount of my extra effort would make up for the deficiency (short of home schooling).
I don’t know what I would do if I could not afford to send my child somewhere else or have the choice to home school.
In that scenario (a school failing), I was wondering what your solution would be? In your opinion, what could the solution be constitutionally speaking?
No, when religious schools are the majority of the “choice,” there is no choice.
Since your post seems (please correct me if I am wrong) to indicate the number of choices to be an issue, would you be ok with school vouchers if religious schools were less in number as a choice?
Mueller certainly indicated the direction Rehnquist was headed, but the reasoning was more intellectually honest than his later contorted argument in Zelman. And, as the MN tuition deduction is not the entire amount of tuition and the aid is to the parents, not the schools, I find it less violative of Lemon.
The facts in Mueller indicated that the 96% the deductions were going to parents who sent their children to religious based schools. How do you reconcile with your position in Zelman?
Defining majority in the limiting way you defined it is definitely spewing rhetoric.
Then you are equally guilty of this because your own definition was likewise limiting.
since most people and every major news organization in Minnesota said or reported Pawlenty had a ‘majority’ of the votes, would they all be wrong and you be right?
Yes, they would be wrong and I would be right because Pawlenty received a plurality, not a majority.
And on that, moi, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
EBF
Then you are equally guilty of this because your own definition was likewise limiting.
Again you are revising history. I did not limit the defintion. I included both the definition I was using AND the definition you were using. You were the one who was not including the definition I was using.
Come on. Man up. Take personal responsibility and at least admit what you posted.
Yes, they would be wrong and I would be right
Wow just wow
Now you, like JonR, are saying everyone else is wrong in the use of the word but you two are right!! That is rich.
Again you are revising history. I did not limit the defintion. I included both the definition I was using AND the definition you were using.
Oh? Here’s what I found from your posts:
The definition of majority and plurality are generally considered synonmous when speaking of voting. What you are confusing yourself with is the difference between the types of majorities, simple or relative vs. absolute.
American Heritage Dictionary
Majority: The political party, group, or faction having the most power by virtue of its larger representation or electoral strength.
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law
Majority: The group or political party whose votes predominate.
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Majority: The amount or number by which one aggregate exceeds all other aggregates with which it is contrasted.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
Synonyms: Majority, plurality, in the context of an election, poll, or other voting situation resulting in a statistically based statement, both denote an amount or number larger than some other.
I don’t see my definition in any of these; did I miss one? If so, care to point it out?
Now you, like JonR, are saying everyone else is wrong in the use of the word but you two are right!!
I think I could find a lot of people who would agree with me and JonR. Just because many people believe something to be true, it doesn’t logically follow that it is true. At one point most people thought the world was flat. When it comes to language, many people do not use words correctly, or they mistake one word for another.
I am using the word “majority” as something that is different and distinct from “plurality.” I believe I have made this quite clear. In that sense, Tim Pawlenty was not elected with a majority of the vote.
No wonder why you got beat up alot in school.
When someone said “gag me with a spoon” - you would say - “you can’t gag on a spoon, but you could get it stuck in your throat”
Nevertheless, you need to man up and admit that just because you think people use a word wrong doesn’t mean that the people are using the word wrong.
EBF
I don’t see my definition in any of these; did I miss one? If so, care to point it out?
You wanted me to point out where you were revising history. Now remember I am only going to do this once for you, because I know you can’t take personal responsibility….
Look back at my post where I posted the definitions….what was the line I posted before the definitions
Here I will help you
In addition, since you are citing dictionary definitions, here are some more dictionary definitions:
I even add the emphasis so you wouldn’t miss it.
See the words ‘in addition’ and ’some more’?
Or are you going to argue that they don’t mean what they mean too?
tags
EBF
I don’t see my definition in any of these; did I miss one? If so, care to point it out?
You wanted me to point out where you were revising history. Now remember I am only going to do this once for you, because I know you can’t take personal responsibility….
Look back at my post where I posted the definitions….what was the line I posted before the definitions
Here I will help you
In addition, since you are citing dictionary definitions, here are some more dictionary definitions:
I even add the emphasis so you wouldn’t miss it.
See the words ‘in addition’ and ’some more’?
Or are you going to argue that they don’t mean what they mean too?
moi, you’re very silly. Do you think I’ve forgotten about how you twisted the statement I posted about an evening commitment? You were extremely nitpicky about how you chose to interpret that statement, so I’m going to return the favor here.
In addition, since you are citing dictionary definitions, here are some more dictionary definitions:
And here it is, in context (for those of you who want to verify this, moi made this post at 5:48 p.m. on April 10):
JonR and EBF
Both of you have failed to show some personal responsibility and research the rhetoric you are spewing out, so I did some for our readers.
In addition, since you are citing dictionary definitions, here are some more dictionary definitions:
American Heritage Dictionary…
In addition. In addition to what? You didn’t specify. Is this in addition to my and JonR’s supposed failing, in addition to the research you did, in addition to the rhetoric you spewed out, in addition to this part of the discussion, in addition to the overall discussion on this thread, or in addition to something else? Oh, in your mind it’s very clear, but thankfully I do not think like you do. “In addition” does not clearly indicate that your definitions are “in addition” to my definition of the word “majority.”
Since you are citing dictionary definitions, here are some more dictionary definitions. Well, you could have listed any dictionary definitions for this to be true. Perhaps you could have given us the definitions for “goat,” “dissolve,” and “is.” Again, it is not clear that you are providing “some more” definitions of the word “majority.”
Even taken together – “In addition” … “some more” … – it is not clear that you intended to give some more definitions of the word “majority” in addition to the one that I provided. On the contrary, whatever it is that your definitions are “in addition” to is rather ambiguous.
Perhaps I could give you the benefit of the doubt. But I have already done that once this week (7:19 p.m. April 10), so your allotment has been used up. You could have chosen to make things clear by saying something like “In addition to your definition of the word ‘majority,’ which I acknowledge to be a correct definition, if not the only correct definition, here are some more definitions of the word ‘majority’ for you to consider.” Of course, you didn’t write any such thing. Instead, you depended on me to find an implicit meaning that you are now trying to claim was there (and then, when I didn’t find it, you tried to claim that I don’t accept personal responsibility).
In the context of the overall discussion, I chose (and continue to choose) to interpret your unfortunately poor choice of wording to be nothing more than an attempt to validate your claim that I am wrong. Under such a scenario, you cannot claim that my definition of “majority” was included in your definitions. Why not? Because then you would have to acknowledge that my definition was correct (because you’d be including it), and that would be anathema to you.
moi, I think it’s far past time for you to man up and take some personal responsibility for your posts.
EBF
I guess you are trying to argue that in addition and some more meaning something different.
Wow you really go out of the way to not take personal responsibility.
Just MAN UP and admit your error - take some personal responsibility!!
EBF
I guess you are trying to argue that in addition and some more mean something different.
Wow you really go out of the way to not take personal responsibility.
Just MAN UP and admit your error - take some personal responsibility!!
In addition to what, moi? Some more of what, moi?
Both of you have failed to show some personal responsibility and research the rhetoric you are spewing out, so I did some for our readers.
Did some? Did some what, moi?
The answer to all of these questions: “spewing rhetoric!”
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EBF EBF EBF
Come on now. You are sinking lower and lower.
Just MAN UP and admit your error - take some personal responsibility!!
Keep some more of that rhetoric spewing, moi! In addition to what you’ve already spewed!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
EBF EBF EBF
Come on now. You are further sinking lower and lower.
Just MAN UP and admit your error - take some personal responsibility!!
Tschüß, moi! (Yes, I’m still laughing my ass off at you!)
EBF EBF EBF
Come on now. You are going lower and lower. Here is a bit of advice, when you dig yourself into a hole - the first thing to do is stop digging. I am trying to give you an opportunity to help yourself.
Just MAN UP and admit your error - take some personal responsibility!!
My taxes are only for public schools that do not teach religion.
GREAT WORK, EBF!!!
It’s clear that the only one not taking personal responsibility here is MOI. Thanks for deconstructing his psychosis. Got a good laugh out of it myself.
jcf817
Do you remember your post where were incorrect? I would think that either clause would give a student that right.
We are still waiting for you to take personal responsibility for making an uninformed comment and admit you were wrong.
GREAT WORK, EBF!!!
Wow did you just have an orgasm over EBF or is that too personal?
So which one of the village people are you?
Come on, MAN UP, and tell us which one.
From an moi post on April 3 at 9:20 a.m.:
Now as long as we are establishing ground rules. I will not answer any questions that contain a unfactual assumption only asked to paint me or some else into a corner or to make a false statement. For example, a question like - When did you stop beating your wife? - You see it contains a false assumption that I beat my wife.
From an moi post on April 11 at 10:08 p.m.:
So which one of the village people are you?
So I can conclude that while moi will not answer presumptive questions, he has no problem asking them. Some people might see this as being just a wee bit hypocritical. Or a failure to accept personal responsibility.
Thanks for deconstructing his psychosis.
Oh, you’re most welcome, jcf817! It was my great pleasure to perform this public service.
MOI…YOU need to take some personal responsibility and READ my damn post!
I made a simple comment of what I thought. I asked you for clarification on the matter, BECAUSE I wasn’t sure. You provided clarification. There was no more to be said. I never claimed that I knew the answer.
Your most recent comment to me only proves that you’re more interested in being a blog bully.
MAN UP, yourself.
If this was a Christian school, I doubt the reporter would even investigate it in the first place.
Since this article has come out, there has been threats to peopleso far and I feel that the children are not safe at this time
MOI…YOU need to take some personal responsibility and READ my damn post!
No kidding! moi doesn’t read other people’s posts carefully, if at all. He just assumes that he knows what people mean. If he had bothered to read my April 11, 12:19 p.m. post, he would have discovered that I was not arguing that “‘in addition’ and ’some more’ mean something different.”
Your most recent comment to me only proves that you’re more interested in being a blog bully.
My sentiments exactly. moi has bullied people here from his first post of his first day. He seems proud of that fact.
My theory is that moi, being a public prosecutor (persecutor?), acts like this everywhere. I’ll bet he delights in pressing charges on the flimsiest of evidence (he likely makes up some of it) and then tries to bully judges and juries into convicting those people. If the judge or jury doesn’t convict, he probably accuses them of “not accepting personal responsibility.” I can only imagine the loud groan judges must utter when they see him walk into their courtrooms. Those judges must have their hands full trying to deal with moi’s “logic” and intimidation tactics. If I were a judge I’d defenestrate him!
EBF
So I can conclude that while moi will not answer presumptive questions, he has no problem asking them. Some people might see this as being just a wee bit hypocritical. Or a failure to accept personal responsibility.
Since EBF needs to obviously learn how to take personal responsibility, I will lead be example.
My question contained an unspoken presumption; jcf817 was a singer in a ‘70’s disco band.
So my new question is posted below to jcf817.
Oh, you’re most welcome, jcf817! It was my great pleasure to perform this public service.
Its nice to know you also get “pleasure” in helping jcf817 out with his problem and if jcf817 does take personal responsibility it will be better for the public, however, please keep the helping of each other ‘manning up’ to G or PG rated material.
djcf817
Seeing that you are staunchly defending EBF’s false statements, incorrect assumptions, fallacious logic, revision of history and failure in taking personal responsibility; are you in the Village People and if so, which one?
jcf817
Seeing that you are staunchly defending EBF’s false statements, incorrect assumptions, fallacious logic, revision of history and failure in taking personal responsibility; are you in the Village People and if so, which one?
jcf817
READ my damn post!
Oh I don’t think your post is damned. I believe everyone has a right to their posting and no post is damned.
Come on, man up, and believe in what you post.
Speaking of what you posted…
I made a simple comment of what I thought. I asked you for clarification on the matter, BECAUSE I wasn’t sure. You provided clarification. There was no more to be said. I never claimed that I knew the answer.
On the contrary, your post was expressing your opinion on what you thought the answer was. It was not a question or clarification. It was two rhetorical questions followed by your on opinion as the answer was. I obviously proved your opinion wrong through fact and logic.
You need to man up and take personal responsibility for posting your own opinion and that your opinion was wrong.
Trying to deflect the argument through name calling only further proves that you can’t take personal responsibility.
Please, man up and take personal responsibility.
EBF
No kidding! moi doesn’t read other people’s posts carefully, if at all. He just assumes that he knows what people mean. If he had bothered to read my April 11, 12:19 p.m. post, he would have discovered that I was not arguing that “‘in addition’ and ’some more’ mean something different.”
Wow, you alleged I do something and then use proof that actually shows how you do what you allege I did.
You need to take personal responsibility and look at your own posts. You try to change the definition of words so that you can change the meaning of my posts.
Come on, fess up, and take personal responsibility; its all part of manning up!
moi has bullied people here from his first post of his first day.
Another unproven and unsubstantiated allegations; further showing EBF’s lack of personal responsibility. Hmm, I think we are going to need to do one of those interventions so that we can get EBF into to treatment so he can mann up.
If I were a judge…
To be a judge you need to have a law degree, the capacity to understand the law, the ability to apply the law, the skill to follow logic, the aptitude to use only facts in your arugments and the fortitude to take personal responsibility. That’s quite a tall order for your EBF.
However, I believe in you EBF, I think with years of hard work and determination, we may have you ready to take the law school entrance exam. We should concentrate on just that though and we will tackle the other stuff later, don’t want to overwhelm you right off the bat.
Remember, keep your chin up, man up and keep striving for taking personal responsibility, we are all pulling for you.
MOI-
At 11:17 PM on April 9, I posted:
“MOI-
What is your basis for that? Is there a court ruling? I would think that either clause would give a student that right.”
Now…I would like you to explain how the very direct question are, as you state, rhetorical.
I asked 2 direct questions of you, then stated my opinion. You answered my questions, albeit in your usual “holier-than-thou” tone, in a subsequent post. There was nothing more to say. The thread was finished. You answered my direct questions. My statement of opinion was exactly that…opinion. My opinion on the subject is different now because of the information you gave me.
You need to MAN UP to reading more into my statement than was there.
Another unproven and unsubstantiated allegations…
Nope. Simple fact. I’m not the only one who thinks so.
If I were a judge…
I’d still push you out a window!
jcf817 posts
My statement of opinion was exactly that…opinion. My opinion on the subject is different now because of the information you gave me.
It is amazing the lengths people will go to avoid taking personal responsibility. Take jcf817 for instances…instead of stating that his opinion was wrong and he changed it, he says his opinion is different now.
Yes jcf817 your opinion is different now but you need to MAN UP take personal responsibility and admit that the reason your opinion is different now is because your opinion before was wrong before!!!
EBF
Simple fact. I’m not the only one who thinks so.
Your posts clearly show have no clue as to what is fact and what is opinion. One does not think a fact to be true, no matter who many people think it true. When you think something, that is an opinion.
Here let me illustrate the difference.
You think you take personal responsibility – that is not a fact, that is an opinion.
You actions prove you don’t take personal responsibility – that is not an opinion, that is a fact.
If I were a judge…
We have already shown that you would need to change a great deal and work very hard to even be considered for a judge.
I’d still push you out a window!
When you don’t have facts, logic or reasoning on your side, I guess you have to resort to any type of censorship.
EBF, quit embarrassing yourself and just MAN UP and take personal responsibility.
MOI says,
“It is amazing the lengths people will go to avoid taking personal responsibility. Take jcf817 for instances…instead of stating that his opinion was wrong and he changed it, he says his opinion is different now.
Yes jcf817 your opinion is different now but you need to MAN UP take personal responsibility and admit that the reason your opinion is different now is because your opinion before was wrong before!!!”
You don’t like my response, so you change the argument. I’m not going to play your game.
You’re pathetic.
hey MOI-
ever notice how NOone ever backs up your side of the argument? Now…why could that be?
jcf817
You’re pathetic.
Wow, name calling. That only shows you don’t have truth, facts or logic on your side of the argument.
You don’t like my response, so you change the argument.
I didn’t change the argument. You don’t and won’t take personal responsibility and admit that you are wrong. That is has been argument.
I’m not going to play your game.
I can see why you would not want to continue - you can’t man up and take personal responsibility.
I have already answered you.
jcf817
I have already answered you.
I didn’t ask you a question. I merely pointed out that you don’t man up and take personal responsibility when you are wrong.
You tried to put a ’spin’ on it by saying that your opinion was different now than before instead of manning up and saying you were wrong or incorrect before.
I called you on your spin, you refuse to man up and take personal responsibility. Then you started mud slinging.
If mud slinging was your ‘answer’ than you did ‘answer’ me.
I better MAN UP and stop feeding the ugly troll.
jcf817
More name calling?
I don’t recall mentioning any specific users.
Are you claiming ownership of said name?
MOI
“I didn’t ask you a question.”
For someone who routinely picks nits over the usage of words, I’m surprised that you don’t understand my usage of the word “answer”.
jcf817
Once again, you show us that you cannot even take responsibility for your own post and meaning.
Man up and take personal responsibility. Grow a pair and show us that you can actually stand behind something you post.
nice try
Jcf817
Thought you said you were going to stop. Can’t you MAN UP and take personal responsibility and do what you say? You are proving you cannot. Maybe you and EBF can get a support group going for learning to MAN UP and doing what you say you are going to do.
keep trying
Jcf817
Thought you said you were going to stop. Can’t you MAN UP and take personal responsibility and do what you say? You are proving you cannot. Maybe you and EBF can get a support group going for learning to MAN UP and doing what you say you are going to do.
Keep it going
I am going to say whatever I want to say.
jcf817
You go ahead and do that. I am just pointing out thta you say one thing and do another. You don’t walk your talk or talk your walk.
It all comes down to taking personal responsibility.
Man up an keep on postin’!!
As I said, I’m going to say what I want to say.
So…you can keep playing the game if you want.
I don’t have to answer to you.
The other readers of this blog see right through you, as do I.
…not that anyone else is reading this thread anymore, anyway.
Man up and keep on postin’!!
I am moving on, if you want the last word, go ahead and post after me.
This is America! If Islamic people pay taxes, then just like any other religion, it should be allowed in the schools. This is the beauty of America. Freedom of speech and religion!!! And so you know, I am Christian and I often say prayers while I work in a public school during the day!!
*
Do people need something else to do other than find things to complain about????
I agree with tiny litess’s concerns and observations about the shouts of “Allahu Akbar!” overheard at Ellison’s victory.
More needs to be said, however.
1) The Islamic acclamation “Allahu Akbar!” does not translate as “God is great!”, but literally translates as “God is greater!” Greater than what? Greater than other people’s gods. The Islamic acclamation is inherently, and historically, an expression of Islamic supremacism and intolerance. Historically (and right up to the present day), the Islamic acclamation is a war cry — either anticipating the military defeat of the enemy, or celebrating a military victory over the enemy.
2) Critics of tiny litess above noted that one sees celebrities and politicians in America often “thanking God” in speeches, etc. This is an absurd comparison. The demure, restrained expression of gratitude to “God” (during which 99% of the time no specific “god” is even mentioned: it could be a New Agey “She” syncretistically diluted with vaguely mystical overtones, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism, and all sorts of “Isms” sampled from the comparative religions cafeteria) is hardly comparable to the specific Islamic acclamation. The proper comparison would be if we saw, at the victory rally of an American Congressman, Christians shouting “Jesus is the Only God!” or “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Three in One, is the Only God!”
Needless to say, we don’t see this, except at specifically religious rallies — not political rallies, and certainly not awards shows.
Katherine should be careful what she asks for. My son attended a charter school that had religious education in its before- and after-school program. The religious education took place right down the hall from the principal’s office. Does Katherine really want to start a witch hunt to root out all religious activities that take place at charter schools in Minnesota? If she does, I know a lot of Christians who are going to be pretty disappointed.
Please leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Katherine Kersten writes a weekly column for the Star Tribune's Sunday Opinion Exchange section. The column covers a broad range of topics reflecting her experiences and interests.
In this blog, she will address many of the same issues, albeit in quicker, less formal fashion, along with pointing readers to other sources of interesting online commentary and coverage.
Subscribe to Katherine Kersten
Learn more about RSS
Books I Love
- Underdevelopment is a State of Mind - Lawrence E. Harrison
- The Schools We Need: Why We Don’t Have Them – E.D. Hirsch
- The Closing of the American Mind – Allan Bloom
- The Repeal of Reticence – Rochelle Gurstein
- Political Pilgrims – Paul Hollander
- The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism – Michael Novak
- A Conflict of Visions – Thomas Sowell
- Adam Bede – George Eliot
- The Brothers Karamazov – Fyodor Dostoevsky
- The Lord of the Rings -- J. R. R. Tolkein
Great Minnesota Blogs
Indispensible Think Tanks
Movies You Won't Forget
On Education
- Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
- Center for Education Reform
- Core Knowledge Foundation
- Intercollegiate Studies Institute
On Marriage and the Family
Sites You Shouldn't Miss
Categories
- 2008 GOP Convention (11)
- Abstinence (3)
- ACLU (3)
- ADA (1)
- Adoption (1)
- Adversary Culture (3)
- Affirmative Action (3)
- AIDS (2)
- Airlines (1)
- Airport Taxi Drivers (3)
- Al Franken (5)
- Al Gore (3)
- Al Sharpton (1)
- Amy Klobuchar (1)
- Animal Rights (3)
- Anti-Americans (1)
- art (1)
- Assisted Suicide (1)
- Athletics (1)
- Bikes (5)
- Bill Clinton (1)
- Bin Laden (1)
- Boy Scouts (1)
- Boys (2)
- Brainerd Lakes (1)
- Bridge (1)
- Bridge Collapse (8)
- British (1)
- Canada (1)
- Charter schools (1)
- Children (14)
- China (1)
- Chris Stewert (1)
- Christianity (8)
- Christmas (6)
- Cities (2)
- Clarence Thomas (1)
- Collectors (1)
- Colleges (24)
- Congress (2)
- Conservatism (8)
- Constitution (5)
- Contraception (1)
- Courts (9)
- Courtship (1)
- Crime (12)
- Critical Mass (2)
- Culture Wars (6)
- Cyberspace (1)
- Darwin (1)
- Dating (2)
- Dawkins (1)
- Death (2)
- Death Penalty (2)
- Delta Queen (2)
- Discrimination (8)
- Disneyland (1)
- Diversity (9)
- Divorce (2)
- Don Samuels (1)
- Drugs (5)
- Economics (10)
- Education (32)
- Emperor has no clothes (1)
- Energy Policy (1)
- Environmental Issues (11)
- Ethanol (2)
- Eugenics (1)
- Europe (8)
- Evil (1)
- Experts (1)
- Falwell (1)
- Fathers (4)
- Feminists (3)
- First Minnesota Volunteers (1)
- Flying Imams (12)
- Francis of Assisi (1)
- Free Speech (2)
- free will (1)
- Gambling (1)
- Garrison Keillor (2)
- Gas Prices (1)
- Gay Issues (4)
- Gay Marriage (8)
- George Washington (1)
- Germany (1)
- Global Warming (11)
- government gone wild (2)
- Happiness (4)
- Hate Crimes (3)
- Health Care (10)
- Hillary Clinton (2)
- Home Schooling (2)
- Huck Finn (1)
- Indomitable Human Spirit (6)
- Intellectual Freedom (1)
- Iran (1)
- Iraq (22)
- Islam (3)
- James Lileks (1)
- Jane Fonda (1)
- Joe Lieberman (2)
- John Edwards (1)
- John Kerry (2)
- John McCain (2)
- John Wesley Powell (1)
- Journalists (2)
- Keith Ellison (5)
- Larry Craig (1)
- law enforcement (3)
- Lawyers (3)
- Legislature (5)
- Lori Swanson (1)
- Love (2)
- Main (554)
- Manhood (3)
- Mark Ritchie (1)
- Marriage (14)
- Media (9)
- medical ethics (1)
- Melancholia (1)
- Michael Moore (1)
- Michael Vick (1)
- Michelle Bachmann (2)
- Mike Hatch (2)
- Military (19)
- Mitt Romney (1)
- Monster Houses (1)
- Morality (12)
- Mortgage Crises (2)
- Mother Teresa (1)
- Movies (3)
- Multiculturalism (4)
- Museums (1)
- Music (1)
- Muslims (17)
- Nancy Pelosi (1)
- Navy SEALs (1)
- New Orleans (1)
- Norm Coleman (3)
- Norman Borlaug (1)
- North Korea (1)
- Novels (1)
- Obama (10)
- Oberstar (2)
- Olympics (1)
- Outward Bound (1)
- Overcoming (1)
- Parenting (10)
- Peter Singer (2)
- Peter Swanson (1)
- Political Correctness (3)
- Political Pilgrims (1)
- Politics (68)
- Popular Entertainment (3)
- Pornography (3)
- Poverty (5)
- Princess Diana (1)
- Prostitution (1)
- psychology (1)
- Race (16)
- Rachel Paulose (2)
- Radical Islam (3)
- Rap Music (3)
- Religion (21)
- Rights Talk (7)
- ROTC (1)
- Salvation Army (1)
- Sara Jane Olson (1)
- Sarah Palin (4)
- Science (15)
- Self Esteem (2)
- Sexual Infidelity (1)
- Sexuality (16)
- Single Parents (1)
- Sixties (1)
- Skewering the Author (4)
- Slavery (1)
- Smoking (2)
- Social Security (1)
- Solzhenitsyn (1)
- Somalis (2)
- Sports (1)
- Statistics (1)
- STDs (1)
- Stem Cells (2)
- Suicide (1)
- Sustainability (1)
- Sweden (1)
- Tatoos (1)
- Taxes (6)
- Terrorism (6)
- There for Another (8)
- Think Again Readers (5)
- Thomas More (2)
- Tim Pawlenty (6)
- TIZA (6)
- Tobacco (1)
- Transgender (1)
- University of MN (2)
- Ventura (2)
- Video games (2)
- Vietnam (5)
- Violence and the Media (1)
- Virtues and Values (9)
- Voting (3)
- Wal-Mart (1)
- Wealth and Poverty (6)
- Welfare (4)
- Western Culture (1)
- Woodstock (1)
- World War II (2)
- Young People (18)
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006