http://msnbc.com/news/969495.asp?0cv=CB10

What the f*ck are you trying to imply by posting this link? Don't bother answering; I know what you're trying to imply.

Geez, c'mon man, what's the point? I'm no Bush apologist or blind-sheep supporter of the administration, but did you ever think before posting this that there may be some good damn reason that this guy has been confined? What if he turns out to truly be an al Quaida operative or sympathizer? Why don't you wait until more facts come out before posting things like this in search of some knee-jerk anti-Bush reaction?

Maxallen dude, take a chillpill or something. What's wrong with posting this story?

This guy, unlike most "detainees" will get a hearing or SOMETHING within 120 days because he's military.

Maybe you'll feel better with a report from:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97859,00.html

Maxallen, Sorry I guess I should have added my thoughts, they would have been as follows
So my question is this, if someone is a "True believer" and their teaching has been on the fundemental vein. Can we expect them to put god in front of country? And is there any difference between this man ( if convicted) and say what the judge in Al was doing? I understand there is a question of degree, but if you put God above the law in one case.....

[ September 21, 2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: p2insdca ]

Thanks for the clarification p2insdca. I'm sorry for my extreme reaction earlier. (I had a few beers this evening and my fingers were a bit loose on the keyboard.) It does raise my ire a bit when people post links to articles with a provocative thread title, and no further comment in the opening post.

Anyway, from the title of the thread, I thought you were accusing the Bush administration of putting "God before country" by confining this person because of his religion. I'm a liberal, but I don't blindly fall in line with every criticism of the Bush administration as some people on this board do. Your clarification has put a whole different twist on it, to which I will give some thought, and I look forward to reading other responses.

[ September 21, 2003, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: maxallen ]

Maxallen, Again, sorry,, I was rushing to watch a game. No offense taken on my part....

p2 that's a profound question. I hope our current administration doesn't provide the genesis for a neverending American/Islam conflict ala the Israelis and the Palestinians. Our God is better than your God.

With a team including the likes of John Ashcroft, could it be possible? Does it depend on whether Karl Rove thinks a new "cold war" would be good for the 2004 elections and the GOP's future power? Good for DickHalliburton? Jeb in 2008? Prescott in 2016 and Jenna/Barbara in 2024? eek!

Authorities are claiming they had their eyes on this guy when he came back from Syria and inlisted as a chaplain and exactly when to bust him. Was he set up? We'll never know. Were the prisoners set up? Who cares? Yee's future will be interesting. Will we know anytime soon?

I think that's sufficient to re- classify you as a "moderate." (See, e.g., two posts below yours for the personification of the true, unreconstructed "liberal".)

Hmmm. Moslem soldier lobs a grenade inside a tent housing a number of his fellow soldiers. Kills one. Wounds several more. Fast forward. Moslem "chaplain" caught trying to smuggle classified documents to al-Qaeda prisoners at Gitmo. Was involved in their interrogations at which the combatants were quite uncooperative. Like I said: hmmmmm.

I'm having trouble understanding this whole "Islam is a religion of peace" thing.

CITT by your post"(See, e.g., two posts below yours for the personification of the true, unreconstructed "liberal".)" I assume you mean me....I guess by saying I was sorry in my post that is what gave me away....
I too have trouble with the Islam = Peace notion.
From Hamas to the Saudis I do not feel the love.

You overshot the mark by one. I was referring to two posts below the particular maxallen post where he declares himself a "liberal" (seventh post in the thread).

CITT, opps my bad looks like I get to say I'm sorry again....

There's a one apology per thread limit around these parts. So you're going to have retract one of those apologies. And don't even think about saying you're sorry for making too many apologies ... wink

C'mon CIIT - it's not like Christianity is so wonderful and doesn't have a lot of blood on its hands - hell the pogroms against Jews in Russia were as bad, if not worse, than any terrorism Islamic militants have conducted in recent past (not as dramatic or wide-reaching, I will admit - but that was a different era) - if only because it was state-sanctioned.

And Hornfan does have a point - as much as we fear those who have warped Islam to fit their own political agendas, we should be wary of "Christians" who have warped their religion to fit a specific political agenda. Remember, many of the supporters of Judge Roy Moore argue that the First Amendment does not stop a state from establishing a religion, only the federal government. In their eyes, this country is a "Christian" nation - and the religious freedoms enjoyed by non-Christians are at the discretion of those same "Christians" - they can and should be taken away when the "Christians" see fit.

Clearly these people do not represent all Christians, but neither do the terrorist represent all Islamics. Radical "Christians" have not turned that violent, yet, but have had their share of violent followers. I have no doubt that some of these same "Christians" will be screaming madly for an end to all Islamic chaplains, if not Muslim soldiers - and I do fear that these "Christians'" hard-line against Muslims could eventually spark the very Christian/Muslim holy war that Bin Laden wants.

That all said, given the type of war the Islamic radicals are waging, I would not be surprised to see a fifth column attempt in the armed forces. I don't think it would be widespread, but I would not surprised to see it occur.

Okay, I've been thinking about and struggling with the question at hand (as I understand it): If a person of one religion (i.e. Islam) puts God before country, how and why is that any different than a person of a different religion (i.e. fundamentalist Christian) putting God before country? In this case, the difference seems clear on the surface: Violence. Terrorism.

Personally, I'm apalled at the whole 10 commandments fiasco in Alabama, and I think people who worship a god to that extreme must have a severe mental weakness and may be "thisclose" to resorting to violence themselves. Well, we've recently seen the abortion doctor killer in FL who had no remorse whatsover for his crime. I know many people think "W" falls in that category, but personally I think he just panders to those people to get re-elected (not that that makes him any better or different than them). I think W is more interested in holding power than in worshiping a higher power, as are most other U.S. politicians.

It's a sort of paradox that our country was founded on the principal of religious freedom, yet that is what gives people the freedom to put God before this country.

Sorry for my random ramblings here... I'm not religious in the slightest, and have a hard time understanding how people can really believe in a mythical god to the point that it takes importance over anything else in life. I think that most people who profess to that strong of a belief must be either mentally weak and brainwashed, or they're lying. Just my opinion!

So, in closing, my answer to p2's question is NO. There is no fundamental difference between what the Muslim Army chaplain was allegedly doing and what the Alabama judge was doing.

According to CNN Breaking News banner on their site - the chaplain will be charged with espionage - so the case grows ever stranger.

Also there is another person who was taken in 2 weeks before this guy...