Burning the Koran

[Ishmael]

Yup, those miserable US soldiers burned those sons a bitches and Obama is going to get to the bottom of it and prosecute those bastards. It was such a horrendous act that he was compelled to apologize to what, arguably, might be the most corrupt national leader extent.

Hmmm, but why were they burned to begin with?

The original story, unchanged, is that previous 'detainees' had written in the margins. And the writings were of a nature to instruct the next reader in anti-social behavior. One might see how this could cause the military to burn those books. Books that were originally provided by the military to begin with.

However, the writing in the margins of the holy Qur'an is considered to be an abasement of Gods words in the religion of Islam. And the proscription for such debasement is to 'burn the book.'

So it appears that the US military did exactly the right thing according to the tenants of Islam, for apparently the wrong reason. So why the riots? Because the right thing was done for the wrong reason, or merely because any reason will do?

Kill them all or get the fuck out of that cesspool.

Ishmael

 

[Lord_Steve]

Yup, those miserable US soldiers burned those sons a bitches and Obama is going to get to the bottom of it and prosecute those bastards. It was such a horrendous act that he was compelled to apologize to what, arguably, might be the most corrupt national leader extent.

Hmmm, but why were they burned to begin with?

The original story, unchanged, is that previous 'detainees' had written in the margins. And the writings were of a nature to instruct the next reader in anti-social behavior. One might see how this could cause the military to burn those books. Books that were originally provided by the military to begin with.

However, the writing in the margins of the holy Qur'an is considered to be an abasement of Gods words in the religion of Islam. And the proscription for such debasement is to 'burn the book.'

So it appears that the US military did exactly the right thing according to the tenants of Islam, for apparently the wrong reason. So why the riots? Because the right thing was done for the wrong reason, or merely because any reason will do?

Kill them all or get the fuck out of that cesspool.

Ishmael

hey! guess what! not only did you not post any sources for your hilariously unlikely claims, you are also demonstrably wrong!

here's a brief lesson in the muslim faith. a devout muslim believes all religious truth to derive from the direct words of the prophet as recorded in the Quran. anything that is not included in the text of the Quran itself is regarded as unreliable and subject to debate, even firsthand accounts of the prophet's words and actions (called the "hadith", not that you care). Most elements of Islamic law are based on a lively but peaceful extended debate that extends back to the 8th century, much like Judaic law is based on scholarly reflection and debate upon the Torah and other sources.

I'm about 98% certain that no such prohibition against writing in the Quran exists within the pages of the holy book itself and there is certainly no widely-agreed-upon circumstance that calls for burning the Quran. it is possible some cleric decided that "defaced" Qurans must be burned but it is disingenuous to argue that all or even most Muslims feel that way or that there is any kind of consensus on the matter.

the equivalent assertion in Christian theology would be to argue that since once upon a time the Mormon splinter group believed in polygamy, all modern Christians are encouraged to be polygamous.

but anyway thanks for your adorable ignorance and fearmongering.

 

[John Doe]

This reminds me of the US flag regulations and how you're supposed to dispose of an old flag by burning it. In my experience a lot of people have been shocked at first to hear it, and some flat out believe it's not true.

Some people have weird ideas about fire.

 

[JackLuis]

Kill them all or get the fuck out of that cesspool.

Ishmael

It wouldn't be cost effective to do the first but wise to do the latter ASAP.

 

[John Doe]

It wouldn't be cost effective to do the first but wise to do the latter ASAP.

That all depends on which cost(s) you're talking about.

 

[mercury14]

Yup, those miserable US soldiers burned those sons a bitches and Obama is going to get to the bottom of it and prosecute those bastards. It was such a horrendous act that he was compelled to apologize to what, arguably, might be the most corrupt national leader extent.

Hmmm, but why were they burned to begin with?

The original story, unchanged, is that previous 'detainees' had written in the margins. And the writings were of a nature to instruct the next reader in anti-social behavior. One might see how this could cause the military to burn those books. Books that were originally provided by the military to begin with.

However, the writing in the margins of the holy Qur'an is considered to be an abasement of Gods words in the religion of Islam. And the proscription for such debasement is to 'burn the book.'

So it appears that the US military did exactly the right thing according to the tenants of Islam, for apparently the wrong reason. So why the riots? Because the right thing was done for the wrong reason, or merely because any reason will do?

Kill them all or get the fuck out of that cesspool.

Ishmael

http://s.myniceprofile.com/myspacepic/607/60764.jpg

 

[patrick1]

After 170 years of failed invasions of 'afghanistan' - Britain the proud leader in the early days - 'we' are very slowly crawling away from there, leaving chaos behind us presided over by a corrupt leader we installed. I suppose we have to hurl a few tawdry insults over our shoulders as we go.

I look forward to the measured reactions when, say, iranians burn a few surplus bibles.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

Fuck 'em as Ishmael says let's GTFO of the medieval cesspool. If the locals want to live like that under the taliban then fine but we should also deport all the Afghan and other scumbag asylum seekers that are here.

I read a few months ago there was a policy to eradicate Christianity in Afghanistan that was perpetrated by the Afghan government not the taliban but that didn't remain front page news for too long when Christians were told either revert back to Islam or face the death penalty for the crime of 'apostasy' .

 

[1sickbastard]

Fuck 'em as Ishmael says let's GTFO of the medieval cesspool. If the locals want to live like that under the taliban then fine but we should also deport all the Afghan and other scumbag asylum seekers that are here.

I read a few months ago there was a policy to eradicate Christianity in Afghanistan that was perpetrated by the Afghan government not the taliban but that didn't remain front page news for too long when Christians were told either revert back to Islam or face the death penalty for the crime of 'apostasy' .

I trust you'll remeber this post the next time someone propses an amendment to the constitution declaring the USA a Christian Nation.

The big problem with being commited to individual liberties is you have to extend the rights you want to people whom you despise.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Funny how different the reaction from the Left is compared to the days of "flushing a Quran..."


They were livid at Bush personally.

The Arabic text of the holy Quran, when printed in a book, is known as the mus-haf (literally, "the pages"). There are special rules that Muslims follow when handling, touching, or reading from the mus-haf.
The Qur'an itself states that only those who are clean and pure should touch the sacred text: "This is indeed a Holy Qur'an, in a book well-guarded, which none shall touch but those who are clean..." (56:77-79). The Arabic word translated here as "clean" is mutahiroon, a word that is also sometimes translated as "purified".

Some argue that this purity or cleanliness is of the heart, i.e. that only Muslim believers should handle the Qur'an. However, the majority of Islamic scholars interpret these verses to also refer to a physical cleanliness or purity, which is attained by making formal ablutions (wudu). Therefore, most Muslims believe that only those who are physically clean through formal ablutions should touch the pages of the Qur'an.

As a result of this general understanding, the following "rules" are usually followed when handling the Qur'an:

1) One should make formal ablutions before handling the Qur'an or reading from its text.
2) One who is in need of a formal bath (after intercourse or menstrual bleeding) should not touch the Qur'an until after bathing.
3) A non-Muslim should not handle the sacred text, but may listen to tapes of the Qur'an or handle a translation or exegesis.
4) Those who are unable to handle the Qur'an based on these reasons should either avoid handling the Qur'an completely, or in necessity hold it while using some sort of barrier covering the hand, such as a cloth or a glove.

In addition, when one is not reading or reciting from the Qur'an, it should be closed and stored a clean, respectable place. Nothing should be placed on top of it, nor should it ever be placed on the floor or in a bathroom. To further show respect for the sacred text, those who are writing it should use clear, elegant handwriting, and those who are reading from it should use clear, beautiful voices.

In summary, Muslims believe that the Holy Qur’an should be handled with the deepest respect. However, God is All-Merciful and we cannot be held responsible for what we do in ignorance or by mistake. The Qur'an itself says: "Our Lord! Punish us not if we forget or fall into error" (2:286). Therefore, there is no sin in Islam on the person who mishandles the Qur'an by accident or without the realization of wrongdoing.

http://islam.about.com/od/quran/f/mushaf.htm

It is the inviolability of the Qur'an:

not to touch the Qur'an except in the state of ritual purity in wudu, and to recite it when in a state of ritual purity;
to brush one's teeth with a toothstick (siwak), remove food particles from between the them, and to freshen one's mouth before reciting, since it is the way through which the Qur'an passes;
to sit up straight if not in prayer, and not lean back;
to dress for reciting as if intending to visit a prince, for the reciter is engaged in an intimate discourse;
to face the direction of prayer (qiblah) to recite;
to rinse the mouth out with water if one coughs up mucus or phlegm;
to stop reciting when one yawns, for when reciting , one is addressing one's Lord in intimate conversation, while yawning is from the Devil;
when begining to recite, to take refuge from in Allah from the accursed Devil and say the Basmala, whether one has begun at the first surah or some other part one has reached;
once one has begun, not to interuppt one's recital from moment to moment with human words, unless absolutely necessary;
to be alone when reciting it, so that no one interrupts one, forcing one to mix the words of the Qur'an with replying, for this nullifies the effectivness of having taken refuge in Allah from the Devil at the beginning;
to recite it leisurely and without haste, distinctly pronouncing each letter;
to use one's mind and understanding in order to comprehend what is being said to one;
to pause at verses that promise Allah's favour, to long for Allah Most High and ask of His bounty; and at verses that warn of His punishment to ask Him to save one from it;
to pause at the accounts of bygone peoples and individuals to heed and benefit from their example;
to find out the meanings of the Qur'an's unusual lexical usages;
to give each letter its due so as to clearly and fully pronounce every word, for each letter counts as ten good deeds;
whenever one finishes reciting, to attest to the veracity of ones's Lord, and that His messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) has delivered his message, and to testify to this, saying: "Our Lord, You have spoken the truth, Your messengers have delivered their tidings, and bear witness to this. O Allah, make us of those who bear witness to the truth and who act with justice": after which one supplicates Allah with prayers.
not to select certain verses from each surah to recite, but rather the recite the whole surah;
if one puts down the Qur'an, not to leave it open;
not to place other books upon the Qur'an, which should always be higher than all other books, whether they are books of Sacred Knowledge or something else;
to place the Qur'an on one's lap when reading; or on something in front of one, not on the floor;
not to wipe it from a slate with spittle, but rather wash it off with water; and if one washes it off with water, to avoid putting the water where there are unclean substances (najasa) or where people walk. Such water has its own inviolability, and there were those of the early Muslims before us who used water that washed away Qur'an to effect cures.
not to use sheets upon which it has been written as bookcovers, which is extremely rude, but rather to erase the Qur'an from them with water;
not to let a day go by without looking at least once at the pages of the Qur'an;
to give one's eyes their share of looking at it, for the eyes lead to the soul (nafs), whereas there is a veil between the breast and the soul, and the Qur'an is in the breast.
not to trivially quote the Qur'an at the occurrence of everyday events, as by saying, for example, when someone comes,
"Eat and drink heartily for what you have done aforetimes, in days gone by" [Qur'an 69:24]
when food is brought out, and so forth;

not to recite it to songs tunes like those of the corrupt, or with the tremulous tones of Christians or the plaintiveness of monkery, all of which is misguidance;
when writing the Qur'an to do so in a clear, elegant hand;
not to recite it out aloud over another's reciting of it, so as to spoil it for him or make him resent what he hears, making it as if it were some kind of competition;
not to recite it in marketplaces, places of clamour and frivolity, or where fools gather;
not to use the Qur'an as pillow, or lean upon it;
not to toss it when one wants to hand it to another;
not to miniaturize the Qur'an, mix into it what is not of it, or mingle this worldly adornment with it by embellishing or writing it with gold;
not to write it on the ground or on walls, as is done in some new mosques;
not to write an amulet with it and enter the lavatory, unless it is encased in leather, silver, or other, for then it is as if kept in the heart;
if one writes it and then drinks it (for cure or other purpose), one should say the Basmala at every breath and make a noble and worthy intention, for Allah only gives to one according to one's intention;
and if one finishes reciting the entire Qur'an, to begin it anew, that it may not resemble something that has been abandoned.

http://sunnah.org/sources/ulumquran/conditions_of_handling_quran.htm

I don't know, but it sounds to me like writing in the damned thing might be a bit frowned upon..

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Let's talk smack about the Quran...

The Taliban are using pages torn from the Koran to package heroin sold on the streets by kids. ISAF forces operating in Souther Afghanistan found children with "pockets of heroin and wads of cash" according to USA Today's Gregg Zoroya. The heroin was packaged in ripped up pages from Islam's most holy document. The story also details how the Islamic radicals are using children, aged three and up, as human shields or to plant roadside bombs, as well as peddling drugs to help fund the insurgency. Perhaps the State Department could explain to the Taliban that desecrating the Koran is un-American. That should stop them.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/sep/13/taliban-deface-koran-sell-heroin/

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Oh! LORD STEVE is fulla shit with his assertion that every raghead is on the same page with respect to their Quran. They aint. I stopped going to church 30 years ago when my church loaded up with fags and hags.

And all the tumult is Karzai's doing. Once Owebama cuts and runs Karzai is on his own.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Big Disgrace!

He's kickin' his stan all over the place...



If I were Karzai I would be deeply offended that President Obama did not show up to bow in person...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

Funny how different the reaction from the Left is compared to the days of "flushing a Quran..."


They were livid at Bush personally.


http://islam.about.com/od/quran/f/mushaf.htm


http://sunnah.org/sources/ulumquran/conditions_of_handling_quran.htm

I don't know, but it sounds to me like writing in the damned thing might be a bit frowned upon..

It is, it's defacement of a holy text.

Burning is frowned upon, except for certain instances (and certain scholars for that matter). Preferred method of disposal is to wrap it in clean cloth and either bury it with a headstone (no shit), or sink it in a flowing body of water.

But what is even curiouser, and can be inferred by your postings, is that the Qur'an is NOT the Qur'an unless the text is in Arabic. Translations into other languages is generally frowned upon and, according to many Islamic Jurists, strips the book of all holy meaning. If one were to assume that the books over which the rioting is taking place were in the native tongue of the region, Pashto/Dari, then no 'Holy' Qur'an was damaged at all.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What was it, last week, we were warned that everyone is lying about Afghanistan, about the progress, about the security...

The Taliban is winning the war. The shooter sees that and when the crowd was approaching he knew that if he wasn't an Afghan, he was an American, and that's one more place in the world where you don't want to be an American.



They will keep finding pretexts to turn on us in order to save their families now that they see the NATO bug-out beginning with, of course, the French...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It is, it's defacement of a holy text.

Burning is frowned upon, except for certain instances (and certain scholars for that matter). Preferred method of disposal is to wrap it in clean cloth and either bury it with a headstone (no shit), or sink it in a flowing body of water.

But what is even curiouser, and can be inferred by your postings, is that the Qur'an is NOT the Qur'an unless the text is in Arabic. Translations into other languages is generally frowned upon and, according to many Islamic Jurists, strips the book of all holy meaning. If one were to assume that the books over which the rioting is taking place were in the native tongue of the region, Pashto/Dari, then no 'Holy' Qur'an was damaged at all.

Ishmael

That last bit is an interesting point.

I spent last night reading The Gospel of Judas. I think the gnostics are on to something about this world being the creation of evil...

 

[Ishmael]

What was it, last week, we were warned that everyone is lying about Afghanistan, about the progress, about the security...

The Taliban is winning the war. The shooter sees that and when the crowd was approaching he knew that if he wasn't an Afghan, he was an American, and that's one more place in the world where you don't want to be an American.



They will keep finding pretexts to turn on us in order to save their families now that they see the NATO bug-out beginning with, of course, the French...

Pretty much. Time to start lining up with the 'strong horse.'

The French leaving is no great shakes though. After all, "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Norman Schwarzkopf

Ishmael

 

[Saint Peter]

Pretty much. Time to start lining up with the 'strong horse.'

The French leaving is no great shakes though. After all, "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Norman Schwarzkopf

Ishmael

That is a great quote.

 

[tactful]

Before flicking their Bic, they should have taken a Missouri approach, or applied a kindergarten action.

That would be "show",
for those who are slow.

 

[Lord_Steve]

Funny how different the reaction from the Left is compared to the days of "flushing a Quran..."


They were livid at Bush personally.


http://islam.about.com/od/quran/f/mushaf.htm


http://sunnah.org/sources/ulumquran/conditions_of_handling_quran.htm

I don't know, but it sounds to me like writing in the damned thing might be a bit frowned upon..

from your link:

"What follows is the thoughts of Imam Muhammad ibn Ahmad Qurtubi who was a great Qur'an Scholar and renowned exegisate of the Qur'an."

again: no set islamic law except for what is in the Quran, everything else is up to the individual interpretations of clerics and scholars. thanks for demonstrating that point so nicely for me!

also you still have not provided any sources for the claim that the prisoners were writing messages for each other in the margins of the books in the first place so the point is kind of moot anyway!

Oh! LORD STEVE is fulla shit with his assertion that every raghead is on the same page with respect to their Quran.

this is literally the opposite of what i was saying, way 2 go

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Why Apologize to Afghanistan?
By Andrew C. McCarthy
February 25, 2012 4:00 A.M.

We have officially lost our minds.

The New York Times reports that President Obama has sent a formal letter of apology to Afghanistan’s ingrate president, Hamid Karzai, for the burning of Korans at a U.S. military base. The only upside of the apology is that it appears (based on the Times account) to be couched as coming personally from our blindly Islamophilic president — “I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident. . . . I extend to you and the Afghani people my sincere apologies.” It is not couched as an apology from the American people, whose frame of mind will be outrage, not contrition, as the facts become more widely known.

The facts are that the Korans were seized at a jail because jihadists imprisoned there were using them not for prayer but to communicate incendiary messages. The soldiers dispatched to burn refuse from the jail were not the officials who had seized the books, had no idea they were burning Korans, and tried desperately to retrieve the books when the situation was brought to their attention.

Of course, these facts may not become widely known, because no one is supposed to mention the main significance of what has happened here. First, as usual, Muslims — not al-Qaeda terrorists, but ordinary, mainstream Muslims — are rioting and murdering over the burning (indeed, the inadvertent burning) of a book. Yes, it’s the Koran, but it’s a book all the same — and one that, moderate Muslims never tire of telling us, doesn’t really mean everything it says anyhow.

Muslim leaders and their leftist apologists are also forever lecturing the United States about “proportionality” in our war-fighting. Yet when it comes to Muslim proportionality, Americans are supposed to shrug meekly and accept the “you burn books, we kill people” law of the jungle. Disgustingly, the Times would inure us to this moral equivalence by rationalizing that “Afghans are fiercely protective of their Islamic faith.” Well then, I guess that makes it all right, huh?

Then there’s the second not-to-be-uttered truth: Defiling the Koran becomes an issue for Muslims only when it has been done by non-Muslims. Observe that the unintentional burning would not have occurred if these “fiercely protective of their Islamic faith” Afghans had not defiled the Korans in the first place. They were Muslim prisoners who annotated the “holy” pages with what a U.S. military official described as “extremist inscriptions” in covert messages sent back and forth, just as the jihadists held at Gitmo have been known to do (notwithstanding that Muslim prisoners get their Korans courtesy of the American taxpayers they construe the book to justify killing).

Do you know why you are supposed to stay mum about the intentional Muslim sacrilege but plead to be forgiven for the accidental American offense? Because you would otherwise have to observe that the Koran and other Islamic scriptures instruct Muslims that they are in a civilizational jihad against non-Muslims, and that it is therefore permissible for them to do whatever is necessary — including scrawl militant graffiti on their holy book — if it advances the cause. Abdul Sattar Khawasi — not a member of al-Qaeda but a member in good standing of the Afghan government for which our troops are inexplicably fighting and dying — put it this way: “Americans are invaders, and jihad against the Americans is an obligation.”

Because exploiting America’s hyper-sensitivity to things Islamic advances the jihad, the ostensible abuse of the Koran by using it for secret communiqués is to be overlooked. Actionable abuse occurs only when the book is touched by the bare hands of, or otherwise maltreated by, an infidel.

As our great Iraqi ally Ayatollah Ali Sistani teaches, touching a kafir (“one who does not believe in Allah and His Oneness”) is to be avoided, because Islamic scripture categorizes infidels as equivalent to “urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, pigs, alcoholic liquors,” and “the sweat of an animal who persistently eats filth.” That is what influential clerics — not al-Qaeda but revered scholars of Islamic law — inculcate in rank-and-file Muslims.

And they are not making it up. Sistani came upon this view after decades of dedicated scriptural study. In fact, to take just one telling example (we could list many, many others), the “holy” Koran we non-Muslims are supposed to honor proclaims (in Sura 9:28), “Truly the pagans are unclean . . . so let them not . . . approach the sacred mosque.” It is because of this injunction from Allah that non-Muslims are barred — not by al-Qaeda but by the Saudi Arabian government — from entering Mecca and Medina. Kafirs are deemed unfit to set their infidel feet on the ground of these ancient cities. You don’t like that? Too bad — grin and bear it . . . and, while you’re at it, surge up a few thousand more American troops to improve life in Kandahar.

Understand this: Muslims are killing Muslims all the time. Sunnis attack Shiites, Shiites attack Sunnis. Ahmadi Muslims are attacked in sundry Islamic countries. Often, these Muslim-on-Muslim atrocities involve not only murder but also the torching of the other sect’s homes and mosques — necessarily meaning Muslims are burning Korans, and with far more mens rea than the American personnel had in Afghanistan. None of these atrocities incite global Islamic rioting — it is just Muslim-on-Muslim violence, the numbing familiarity of which calls for no comment, except perhaps to mumble that it must have something to do with how “fiercely protective of their Islamic faith” Muslims are. (Actually, it has to do with Muslims’ deeming the perceived heresies of other Muslims to be apostasy, for which sharia prescribes the death penalty.)

Also understand this: In sharia societies, non-Muslim religious articles are confiscated and destroyed every single day as a matter of policy. In Saudi Arabia, where sharia is the law of the land, where Mecca and Medina are closed to non-Muslims, government guidelines prohibit Jews and Christians from bringing Bibles, crucifixes, Stars of David, and similar artifacts emblematic of their faith into the country. When that prohibition is violated, the offending items are seized and burned or otherwise destroyed. Moreover, though Saudis deny having an official policy that bans Jews from entering the country at all, reports are rampant of travelers’ being denied visas either because they are Jewish or because their passports bear stamps indicative of prior travel to Israel.

In spite of this shameful, conscious, systematic abuse of non-Muslims and their religious articles, King Abdullah has yet to send a letter of apology to Obama. All the presidential bowing in the world will not change this, not when Muslim supremacism is the irreducible core of mainstream Islam — not al-Qaeda Islam, mainstream Islam. And where is Mr. Karzai’s apology over the Afghan soldier who just killed two Americans? That is only the latest incident in a largely unreported epidemic: our “allies” turning their weapons on their Western trainers.

On second thought, who cares if Karzai apologizes? Our troops do not belong in Afghanistan. They have given more than enough, way more. So has our country.

If our government believes the Taliban and other factions are our enemies, allied with al-Qaeda to kill Americans, then we should unleash our military to destroy them. This should not be an endless counterinsurgency experiment that prioritizes the protection of Afghan civilians and the construction of Afghan civil society; it should be a war that our vast might enables us to win rapidly and decisively.

But our government has repeatedly professed that the Taliban are not our enemies. If that is true, we lack not only the will but the cause for waging war. We should leave — now. It is immoral to keep our young men and women there as sitting ducks in a place where the people hate Americans but we are not trying to vanquish them. We routed al-Qaeda years ago. We don’t need to defeat the Taliban or waste time negotiating with them, Karzai, the warlords, and the rest. Let them have their Korans and work it out for themselves with the compassion that has been such a Religion of Peace hallmark for the last 14 centuries.

That, however, cannot be the end of it. If, according to the president, we need to apologize to Muslims because we must accept that they have such an innate, extraordinary ardor for their religion that barbaric reactions to trivial slights are inevitable, then they should not be invited to enter a civilized country. At the very least, our immigration laws should exclude entry from Muslim-majority countries unless and until those countries expressly repeal repressive sharia laws (e.g., the death penalty for apostates) and adopt American standards of non-discrimination against, tolerance of, and protection for religious minorities.

If you really want to promote freedom in Islamic countries, an immigration policy based on civil-rights reciprocity would be a lot more effective, and a lot less expensive, than dispatching tens of thousands of troops to build sharia “democracies.” It would also protect Americans from people whose countries and cultures have not prepared them for the obligations of citizenship in a free society.

 

[Saint Peter]

This is a long and boring quote.

 

[RobDownSouth]

This is a long and boring quote.

AJ is renowned for his long boring quotes. He believes his lengthy non-sequiturs give him a certain gravitas here.