Three cheers for Full-Blooded, patriotic Americans.

Submitted by mariana (United States), Jun 8, 2007 at 16:21

Thank you, Jaladhi, for your kind words. Most of your posting is quite in sync with my thoughts, and I comfortably agree with:

">...Until non-Muslim nations start treating Muslims the way Muslim nations treat non-Muslims, these people will not understand how to live peacefully with everybody else!!!" However: ">People of all colors, race, religion come here and live peacefully, but not Muslims..."

The "but not Muslims..." is a bit too broadly stated [for my taste] and might be misconstrued; it seems to ignore the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who have for generations, lived, worked, played, worshiped, established businesses [employed "others"], paid taxes, and raised families quite comfortably and in total comity with and as full-blooded, patriotic Americans. They go to their Mosques Fridays; Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists on Saturday; and R.C., Orthodox and Protestent Christians mostly on Sundays with no questions, problems or even necessarily, knowledge of their neighbors, employers, or any part of the government.

In fact, our people worshiping on different days [along with the {imperfect, but de jure} equal status of all women] have greatly strengthened, greatly benefited our nation- and have been foremost among the reasons our economy and way of life are head and shoulders above every other nation in the world. ">...If they don't like our systemm, laws, society , values , then why are they here??? They need to be sent back to the ...they come from. " I say: RIGHT ON, Brother! Teach on this! In America, one may not demand: "To which sect do you belong?" "Who is/are your God[s] or Saints?" "Are you Aethistic?" "Do you practice any religion? How often?" or any such intrusion.

It's distinctly unlawful [and un-American] to use these as yardsticks, even where employment, rentals or sales, or anything else is concerned. All are to be treated equally under the law. Legislators and the Supreme Courts have erred grievously since the late 60's, when they set up separate, privileged "classes." The only "relevant classes" I can think of off hand are: citizen/non-citizen; adult/minor; law abiding/law breakers; competent/incompetent; sick/well; educated or skilled/uneducated or unskilled; producers/consumers; contributers/takers. I could make a righteous case for any/all of the above, but: use of lineage, race, religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, [even "age" per se] for employment, privileges, judgment etc., are not in my opinion, legitimate factors. Admittedly, I am, and will remain intolerant of those who would insist we inject these considerations for any reasons. Full Stop. mariana

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".