WOW! DONVAN FOUND A DICTIONARY

Submitted by DANIEL REDMOND (United States), Mar 2, 2009 at 22:46

Hi Donvan, let me first say that I'm happy to know you have access to a copy of Webster's Dictionary. Everybody should have one. As for the word "affinity," no, I have no confusion regarding its definition. It's your use of the word in the phrase "affinity for Muslim mythology" regarding Mr. Obama's state of mind that is baffling. It makes no sense. First of all, it is equivalent to saying "closeness for Muslim mythology," which is non-sensical. He has a 'closeness for mythology'? Perhaps it is the word "mythology" that has you confused.

Without resorting to Webster's venerable work on language, I can tell you that mythology is generally accepted as being the collected myths of a particular society or culture and often consists of stories or beliefs involving supernatural beings, celebrated heros, etc. So do you, perhaps, really mean to state that Obama has a keen 'interest' in Islamic myths? If so, how do you know this? I've yet to hear him make a single statement on the subject of Islamic mythology or to reference a single Islamic myth in any of his speeches and, in case you haven't noticed, he does a lot of public speaking.

And even if he did have a keen interest in Islamic mythology, so what? If an Irish-American held a keen interest in the mythology of Ireland, would this disqualify him from public office? Do you see my point? No, of course you don't, so let me put it this way. You are attempting to impune the qualifications of our current president with groundless speculation as to his academic interests by referencing the Islamic background of one of his parents, a man that he never really knew anyway. Hence, there is no reasoning behind your assertions, just the knee-jerk bigotry of the simple-minded.

As for his "deconstructing the Constitution," here you lapse into an even more pitiable inability to explain yourself in any remotely coherent manner. Now I am reasonably certain that when you originally used the word "deconstructing" you meant it in a perjorative context, as in 'Obama is destroying or devaluing or dismantling the Constitution.' Am I correct? You certainly didn't mean it as a compliment, right? So when I call you out on this assertion and ask you to explain yourself you lamely resort once again to Mr. Webster's dictionary and then inexplicably cite a definition of "deconstruction" or "deconstructing" as meaning "to analyze rigorously." So let me get this straight, in your mind it is a bad idea for a president of the United States to rigorously analyze the Constitution of the United States? Is that what you're telling me? Because if it is, it's about the goofiest criticism I've ever heard of a politician in my entire life. My God, we can't have Obama in the White House, that fool has studied the Constitution too rigorously!!! Heaven help us!!! I mean ... or what?

Oh, by the way, I never claimed that Barack Obama was a Constitutional lawyer. I said that he was a law professor with a specialty in the teaching of "Constitutional law." And if you don't know what that is, well, perhaps you can look it up in Webster's Dictionary.

As for the spelling of Muslim. You say it's Mu'slam; I say it's Muslim.....as does everyone else on the planet. I have never even once seen it spelled as "Mu'slam" anywhere, but if you want to spell it that way, go right ahead. You say "Potahto" and I'll say "Potayto," as the song goes.

You've really got to get over this "demotion" and "elevation" hang-up, Donvan. Obama has simply re-stated the American concept of our melting pot society by giving what amounted to an endorsement of religious freedom. He expressed the opinion, now accepted by most everyone with a functioning cerebral cortex in America, that we as a society allow for Christians, Jews, Muslims (or Mu'slams) and every other religious group to become citizens. This is not a bad thing, at least not according to the Founding Fathers of our nation.

In case you've not heard, this was the first nation on Earth to be founded upon a concept of separating church and state so that no religious group, including Christians, could ever claim exclusive rights to citizenship, as you obviously would like them to. And it doesn't matter what percentage you Christians comprise of the population. You don't get to run the whole show. And besides, what is a Christian anyway? Even Christians can't figure that out and they're so confused on the issue that they've divided themselves into more subcategories than anyone can count---Catholics, Pentacostals, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Babtists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Christian Scientists.......etc. and they all think the others got it wrong.

Heaven help us if they ever take over the country.

Have a nice day......

- DANIEL

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".