A new idiot exposes himself
 

Calm down. Not that kind of "expose".

The United States of America is "an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution," a member of the Department of Homeland Security Council tweeted Thursday.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/01/muslim-dhs-adviser-under-fire-for-controversial-islam-tweet/

His statement doesn't appear to be any better or any worse than similar claims by Christians that America is a Christian nation. What, exactly, is your complaint? I tried to figure out what he meant by going to his twitter feed, but there are too many Frank Gafney types hyperventilating over there to really find out anything.

Oh yeah, hes harmless.

"Sayyid Qutb, Ayatollah Khomeini and radical New York Imam Siraj Wahhaj. He has asserted conspiracy theories, supported terror related individuals and organizations and accused the government of mounting a war against Islam. Despite all this, he was appointed by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano to the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC)"

http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/712.pdf

Gosh, he seems to have something (not sure what) to do with a bunch of guys with scary-sounding names, real muslimy names. I may try to wade through the linked article. Meanwhile, do you have a response to my question? What is your complaint with his statement?

It is in no way a muslim compliant document. There were actual christians involved with constitution. No muslims I know of.

Freedom of, not from religion.

A new idiot exposes himself
 

Interested and being one are two different things.

Im sure you understand that though.

There were christians and non-christians involved in drafting the Constitution, which I believe is beside the point. While I would not have used the phrase, "muslim compliant," I can see why someone else might. The Constitution, AFAIK, does not compel anyone to do anything that violates muslim principles. So, in that way, it probably is muslim compliant.

Why do you care about this? Isn't he entitled to his opinion? His comment, standing alone, does not seem anti-American to me.

I have a copy of the Koran, too.

The folks who wrote it that had rejected Christianity (like Jefferson and Franklin) nonetheless were steeped in Christian values and believed those values were fundamentally important for a healthy society. Franklin in particular was an interesting case. In his lifetime he vacillated between traditional religion, Deism, and atheism. Toward the end of his life he embraced Quakerism and in that role, held an anti-slavery protest that interrupted the business of Congress by invading the chambers and so forth. Jefferson, though usually described as a Deist, was also sometimes a Trinitarian and sometimes not. Washington, generally viewed as a religious man, generally tried to keep religion t arms length except in his private devotional.

Many of those guys were Freemasons, fundamental to which is a belief in a Supreme Architect of the Universe -- monotheism. Thus, a Freemason could be a Christian, Jew, or Muslim without compromising his religion or his lodge. But he could not be an atheist.

It appears to be more then an opinion. TKO indeed.


Senior DHS Adviser: America

"This is not the first time that his tweets, which he says are his personal opinions, have become the subject of controversy.

Elibiary argued earlier this month that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a threat to the United States, according to the nonprofit Clarion Project, which has tracked and documented Elibiary’s online activity.

He also has called former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi “Egypt’s Mandela,” a reference to South Africa’s Nelson Mandela.

Elibiary has expressed great support for the Muslim Brotherhood, claiming in a recent interview with Clarion that the organization is “pragmatic” and “non-violent.”

Further reading on the subject reveals that he was asked the question of if the US Constitution was in line with Islamic tenets. He answered that it was. This is hardly news as any reading of the US Constitution will reveal little in the way of religious views, and any reading of the Quran will reveal that it is laid down with regulations.

The US Constitution, like all Constitutions, lays down the law of the land. The Quran does the same.

From what I know of both subjects there is nothing in the US Constitution that would conflict with the Quran, but I do think there are parts of the Quran that conflict with the US Constitution.

I think the larger question being asked here is why is such a person an advisor to the DHS? The answer is simple: He is necessary.

I have had dealings with many people who would raise the eyebrows of of the standard bearers of morality, but to such people I take an attitude of "Get a life." Information is where you find it, and if I must deal with those who are frowned upon by others to accomplish my goals then I must deal with them.

It is a part of life I accepted long ago. There is no profit in dealing with false information. I make too many mistakes if I rely solely upon myself, and I always welcome corrections no matter what the source.

Nice to hear that Dubyuh's religiosity is so broadly supported.