Slave Tortures: The Mask, Scold's Bridle, or Brank

Mulier taceat in ecclesia

- 'Let the woman be silent in church'

Let the Woman be Silent in Church: Over four centuries, thousands of women were subjected to the wearing of these contraptions. The main principle behind the scold's bridle was: let the woman be silent in church, though the word 'church' referred to the Parish community, or to be more precise; the male hierarchies of a community, rather than the building of bricks and mortar. Further translation would suggest more accurately - 'Let the woman be silent in the presence of the male'.

(Image source: Faganarms)

English or possibly Colonial American as these were used by the Puritan Pilgrims who severely punished offenses which violated their cultural or religious values. The concept and its predecessors originated in Scotland and were popular throughout England. Comprising a finely forged cage of four bars, sized for a woman’s head, the front shaped to accommodate the nose. The lower face enclosed by a plate with pin pierced ventilation holes and a small triangular opening at the mouth through which food and drink could be administered.

The back bar with a finely forged “pig tail” terminal. The sides with shackles meeting the back side bars with small holes for rivet fastening. This example is distinguished by its small feeding aperture and provision for rivet locking rather than padlocking. The former feature undoubtedly allowed for bread and water to sustain life and both features indicate its use for long term incarceration. Its fine rich stable patina is as found on examples preserved in museum collections. Height: 11 3/4” (source:Faganarms)

Scold's Bridle: This was a metal frame place over a woman's head. It had a bit that stuck in her mouth to prevent her talking. The scold's bridle or branks was used in Scotland by the 16th century and was used in England from the 17th century. It was last used in Britain in 1824

Source: Le Magasin Pittoresque (1846, Vol. 14), p. 229

Caption "Esclave Marron a Rio de Janeiro" (Fugitive/Runaway Slave in Rio de Janeiro), based on a drawing by a Mister Bellel. The engraving illustrates a brief article on fugitive slaves in Brazil, and is apparently derived from first-hand information. "Captured fugitives," the article notes, "are forced to do the hardest and roughest work. They are ordinarily placed in chains and are led in groups through the city's neighborhoods where they carry loads or sweep refuse in the streets. This type of slave is so frightful that, while they have lost all hope of fleeing again, they think of nothing but suicide. They poison themselves by drinking at one swallow a large quantity of strong liquor, or choke/suffocate themselves by eating dirt/earth. In order to deprive them of this way of causing their own deaths, they put a tin mask on their faces; the mask has only a very narrow slit in front of the mouth and a few little holes under the nose so they can breathe" (p. 229; our translation).

Slave Mask: Image Reference, NW0191. Source:Jacques Arago, Souvenirs d'un aveugle. Voyage autour du monde par M. J. Arago . . . (Paris, 1839-40), vol. 1, facing p. 119

Arago"s voyage took place between 1817 and 1820, during which time close to two months (early December to the end of January 1818) were spent in Brazil, particularly Rio de Janeiro. The engraving shown here, based on a sketch by Arago, is captioned "Chatiment des Esclaves, Brasil" (Punishment of Slaves). It shows an unidentified male and probably represents a composite of several enslaved Brazilians who Arago observed in the streets of Rio. This illustration is often confused and misidentified in secondary sources on slavery. Among other errors, such sources identify the subject as a woman, but Arago quite explicitly refers to the figure as a man. For a detailed discussion of this image and its historical context, see J. Handler and A. Steiner, "Identifying Pictorial Images of Atlantic Slavery: Three Case Studies," Slavery and Abolition 27 (2006), 56-62. The transformation of this image in Brazil in modern times to represent a martyred female slave is discussed in J. Handler and K. Hayes, "Escrava Anastacia: The Iconographic History of a Brazilian Popular Saint," African Diaspora: Journal of Transnational Africa in a Global World 2 (2009), 1-27

Image Reference BRIDG-4_IMG. Source: Richard Bridgens, West India Scenery...from sketches taken during a voyage to, and residence of seven years in ... Trinidad (London, 1836), plate 20. (Copy in Providence Atheneum, Rhode Island)

Comments: Caption, "Negro Heads, with punishments for Intoxication and dirt-eating." "The tin collar is a punishment for drunkenness in females," while the mask is "a punishment and preventative of . . . dirt eating." The illustration also shows facial and body scarification, or so-called "country marks," indicative of African origin; the man in the center right also displays filed or modified teeth, another indicator of African birth among West Indian slaves (see Jerome Handler, Determining African Birth from Skeletal Remains: A Note on Tooth Mutilation, Historical Archaeology [1994], vol. 28, pp. 113-119). There is no certain date of publication of Bridgens West India Scenery, though major libraries with copies of this work usually assign 1836 as a publication date. A sculptor, designer and architect, Bridgens was born in England in 1785. In 1825 he moved to Trinidad where his wife had inherited a sugar plantation. Although Bridgens apparently occasionally returned to England, he died in Port of Spain in 1846. Bridgens’ racist perspectives on enslaved Africans and his defense of slavery are discussed in T. Barringer, G. Forrester, and B. Martinez-Ruiz, Art and Emancipation in Jamaica: Isaac Mendes Belisario and his Worlds [ Yale University Press, 2007], pp. 460-461.

Slave Mask Image Reference, NW0192. Source: Thomas Branagan, The Penitential Tyrant; or, slave trader reformed (New York, 1807), p. 271. (Copy in Library Company of Philadelphia; also Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, LC-USZ62-31864)

Comments: Bound into this abolitionist work, but consecutively paginated with the title poem, is a separate essay, "The Method of Procuring Slaves on the Coast of Africa; with an account of their sufferings on the voyage, and cruel treatment in the West Indies" (pp. 252-274). This essay is accompanied by a number of engravings, including the one show here, which is described (on p. 270) as follows: "A front and profile view of an African's head, with the mouth-piece and necklace, the hooks round which are placed to prevent an escapee when pursued in the woods, and to hinder them from laying down the head to procure rest. At A [see letter over mouth of figure on the right] is a flat iron which goes into the mouth, and so effectually keeps down the tongue, that nothing can be swallowed, not even the saliva, a passage for which is made through holes in the mouth-plate." On the lower right is an enlarged view of this mouth piece which "when long worn, becomes so heated as frequently to bring off the skin along with it." The lower left shows leg shackles used on the slave ships; also, "spurs used on some plantations in Antigua" (placed on the legs to prevent slaves from absconding). Another illustration in the Penitential Tyrant, which does not appear to be present in all copies of this work (and is not shown on this website) shows a slave lashed to an upright ladder, which is leaning against a tree, while being whipped by another slave as the slavemaster looks on.

The Scold's Bridle

A scold's bridle is a British invention, possibly originating in Scotland, used between the 16th and 19th Century. It was a device used to control, humiliate and punish gossiping, troublesome women by effectively gagging them. Scold comes from the 'common scold': a public nuisance, more often than not women, who habitually gossiped and quarrelled with their neighbours, while the name bridle describes a part that fitted into the mouth. The scold's bridle was also known as the 'gossiping bridle' and the 'Brank(s)', and was commonly used by husbands on their nagging or swearing wives. The device was occasionally used on men; however, it was primarily used on women who agitated the male-dominated society of the era. (image source: Old Electronic Library)

The Scold's Bridle 

Description: 

Made by blacksmiths, the bridle was a cage-like device, made from iron. It was approximately nine inches high and seven inches wide, and was fitted to the woman's head. The most basic type was made of a band of iron, which was hinged at the side and had a protruding part, or tongue piece, that could be flat or with a spike, which went into the woman's mouth, to hold her tongue down. Another band of iron went over her head, the front of which was shaped for her nose to go through. Depending on the design, the bridle could be uncomfortable, painful or torturous, and scarring of the tongue was not uncommon. Some had a bell secured to a spring, which was attached to the bridle, so the wearer could be heard as she approached.

The Scold's Bridle or Branks 

Judicial: 

Some houses had a hook in the wall at the side of the fireplace where the wife would be chained, until she promised to behave herself and curb her tongue. Although sometimes fitted to a nagging wife by the local gaoler (jailer) at the request of her husband, or by the husband himself, it was more often a punitive sentence ordered by a magistrate. Judicial bridles were more elaborate than the basic type; they always had at least one spike and they could be locked. They also had a chain attached to the side of the bridle, with a ring on the end. This could be used to publicly humiliate the woman by leading her through the town, or staking her at a designated area for a set time period. The amount of time the bridle was worn could be from 30 minutes to several hours, depending on the seriousness of the offence, during which time the miscreant would not be able to eat or drink. It was also said to be used on witches to prevent them from chanting or casting spells.

A water color by Jean Baptiste Debret (held by a museum in Rio de Janeiro); published in Ana Maria de Moraes, O Brasil dos viajantes (Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, 1994), image 469, p. 93. Also published in Jean Baptiste Debret, Viagem Pitoresca e Historica ao Brasil (Editora Itatiaia Limitada, Editora da Universidade de Sao Paulo, 1989), p.128, a reprint of the 1954 Paris edition, edited by R. De Castro Maya). (source: University of Virginia)

Shows a slave wearing a tin mask over his face; he is "heading" a large ceramic jar. Brazilian slavemasters compelled slaves who were prone to eat earth or dirt to wear such masks. This illustration does not appear to have been published in Debret's, Voyage Pittoresque et Historique au Bresil (Paris,1834-39), although another slave, wearing such a mask, is illustrated in vol. 2, plate 10, captioned "une visite a la campagne" (the image is not shown on this website). For a description of this mask in Brazil, see image reference ewbank3. The engravings in this book were taken from drawings made by Debret during his residence in Brazil from 1816 to 1831. For watercolors by Debret of scenes in Brazil, some of which were incorporated into his Voyage Pittoresque, see Jean Baptiste Debret, Viagem Pitoresca e Historica ao Brasil (Editora Itatiaia Limitada, Editora da Universidade de Sao Paulo, 1989; a reprint of the 1954 Paris edition, edited by R. De Castro Maya).

Brank ( aka the Scold's Bridle) The Medieval period of the Middle Ages was violent, and blood thirsty. In these barbarous times the cruel and pitiless torturers were induced to inflict the horrors of tortures, including the Brank, on prisoners by restrictive. Torture methods, devices and instruments were used to inflict the deliberate, systematic, cruel and wanton infliction of physical and mental suffering. There were no laws or rules to protect the treatment of prisoners who faced torture, such as the Brank ( aka the Scold's Bridle) by restrictive. Torture was seen as a totally legitimate means for justice to extract confessions, obtain the names of accomplices, obtain testimonies or confessions.

Crimes which warranted the use of / Method of inflicting the Brank

Different types of torture were used depending on the victim's crime and social status. There were also different tortures used for men and women. The Brank was also known as the Scold's Bridle and it was specifically used as a torture for women to inflict humiliation and discomfort as opposed to pain. A scold was a term given to a gossip, shrew or bad tempered woman during the Middle Ages. A scold was defined as: "A troublesome and angry woman who by brawling and wrangling amongst her neighbours breaks the public peace, increases discord and becomes a public nuisance to the neighbourhood." The device was a locking iron muzzle, metal mask or cage which encased the head. There was an iron curb projecting into the mouth which rested on the top of the tongue. This device prevented the shrew from speaking. In some instances the iron curb was studded with spikes which inflicted pain if the victim spoke. Some branks had a bell built in which drew attention to the scold as she walked through the streets. The woman would be humiliated by the jeering and comments from other people.

Nuclear Fatwa

Iran is the center of terrorism, fundamentalism and subversion and is in my view more dangerous than Nazism, because Hitler did not possess a nuclear bomb, whereas the Iranians are trying to perfect a nuclear option. Its time to get the issue straight, the people who hate America are only going to accept the answer they want to hear. That answer is 'its because America is a mean bully who wants to own the world. Wrong, America acknowledges that the weapons existence and use are extremely dangerous to the worlds stability. We already have nukes, but the more nations that get them, the more chance that someone will use them. America, along with many other countries, signed a treaty to limit the spread of these weapons. Has America played favoritism in its deterrent? Certainly, but not without reason. As any country, America must protect its country, as Iran is trying to do. I understand they want it as a deterrent, just as all countries do. So what is the difference between Iran and these countries? Islam. Why should America not fear a country with Islamic rule? They are not afraid to die. They openly admit to the desire to obliterate a country (no matter the reasons behind it). Their guiding book, the koran, which has influence over every part of irans government says the following "Slay them wherever you find them. Idolatry is worse than carnage. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-) "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216) "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-) "If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches." (Surah 3:156-) These are just a few I picked from many many similar quotes. So is America crazy for doing everything in their power to keeping nukes out of Iran, and any other non democratic, Islamic nations? Not in the slightest Iran has been waging an undeclared but deadly war against the West for decades. Funding and arming terrorist groups in any country that will shelter them. The majority of IEDs in Iraq are from Iran, they support the opposition with money and weapons. This is not a country that we can reach an accord, an understanding with that would allow us to "get along" without conflict. It is not just the leaders, a large segment of their population has been taught to hate and revile Western culture, achievement and faith. We are only putting off the inevitable and by doing so we endanger not only Israel but ourselves. Any one who believes Iran's nuclear ambitions are peaceful is as naive, gullible and frankly stupid as Chamberlain when he proclaimed 'peace in out time'. When will people learn arguably the most important lesson from history, that appeasement never works and only makes the situation worse. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Muslim Values and Western Society

It seems most Western people are unaware of 1. Real Western values, 2. How our values form a safe society, 3. That these values need protection, and 4. That other cultures (Muslims) want to conquer our values and society. Western societies value individual freedom to choose, equality for all, honest fair dealing with others, innocent till proven guilty. These values (like it or not) come from Christian values to love God, love neighbours, and forgiveness. They result in democracies with politicians generally accountable, and independent courts decide on the rule of law. Democracy with insdividual choice plus capitalism where individuals can save and choose to invest is not perfect, but it is a least bad framework. Sadly, Muslim values are totally opposed to all those values and end up with the opposite results as their societies are riven by corruption, general repression, murders and chaos. They promote inequality and discrimination. They are based on apartheid by gender, race, colour and faith. The result is slavery flourishes in Muslim lands. UK muslims are even claiming welfare cheques are the jihax tax, a tax for being inferior, that kuffirs must pay muslim rulers! Despite the blatant discrimination and inequality defined in Islam, liberals seem unable to see the blatant apartheid. This shows the success of Islamic takeyya the Koranic code of deception to confuse and conquer kuffirs. Saud spending on propoganda is now more than the USSR at it's peak, and funds university posts, mosques everywhere and propoganda about how nice Spain was after conquest by Moors. Liberals are taken in by the repeats of 'islam is peace'. Islam means obedience. 100% Muslim states like Saudi Arabia only survive by huge police repression with extreme violence, death sentences and discrimination against all others such as women beaten for actions not authorised by their male owner. The key issue is violence implicit in muslim values with the death sentence for any free choice of another faith, or no faith. The cover of being a faith is used by muslims to deflect any criticism of their violence using alleged insults. While in fact the rules on violence have political and economic aims. Killing a political rival was Mohammed's main weapon, he even had a poetess who was critical of him murdered. And in his last 8 years he lead 70+ deadly raids killing off rival tribes and stealing booty to pay his followers. Western liberals seem totally unaware of how arbitrary violence is imbedded in muslim values. This violence does not need a court or any reference. There is no fair protection for the victim. It is a duty of a Muslim to kill another who changes faith. The concept is so inhuman and a denial of all human rights that liberals can not believe it is really true. This is the reverse of Western democracy. In islam personal and political disputes are often settled by murder, even domestic disputes in UK muslim homes suffer extreme violence and 'honour killings' are now known in the UK. They are a dishonour. Even ministers in Pakistan who want reform of 'blaphemy laws' have been murdered by their own bodyguards who are then hailed by Pakistani lawyers profitting from the laws. The whole edifice is based on superiority of Islam and enforcing that on others by violence and corruption is acceptable just results in social disintegration and chaos. This is the state of Pakistan now, only kept afloat by Western Aid money. Numbers of Muslim states are blackmailing the West to support them or they as Failed States they could become a danger. They operate islamic rules, collapse and need Western money to help them, while calling the West evil! The rich Muslim states give minimal help. Wikileaks revealed the Sauds demanding the West 'cut the head of the Iranian snake'. Saud has a powerful military, yet wants the West to do the dirty work. Pakistan takes $5Bn a year western aid, spends it's own money on nuclear bombs, and leaves 7 million children with no school. Of course they knew Bin Laden was in the huge compound beside the Pakistani Sandhurst. The ISI is deadly efficient running wars in Kashmir and Afghanistan. It has milked the West for money to combat terrorism, while promoting terrorism to keep the money flowing. Muslims know their rules promote violence and corruption and use that excuse to milk money from the gullible West. The Arab spring will become very bloody as tyrants increase violence and protesters become desperate, knowing if they lose they will be hunted down. But they have no choice. UK liberals seem unaware the burka and veil and muslim symbols are banned in many muslim lands as symbols of violent aggression. The claim of being for faith is takeyya, as there are no rules for total cover. The burka is a political message to support violent Muslim action. When will the left wing Liberals realise they have been sold out by Labour who imported millions of violent extremists who have far right wing policies. Labour wanted more voters regardless of the effect on the Uk and their own supporters. The 200+ islamic terror cells now in the UK were imported by Labour who subverted all national interests and common sense to get voters in.

Amin al-Husseini Islamic Antisemitism

Amin al-Husseini played a pivotal role in the spread of modern anti-Semitism in the Arab and Islamic anti-Semites of the cooperation with the Nazis. He was a staunch advocate of the extermination of European Jews in the German Reich. He made contacts with the Nazis, won the support of German leadership circles and lived in Berlin since 1941. Al-Husseini was a member of the SS and business propaganda for Germany in Arabic. In the late phase of the Second World War, al-Husseini helped in the Balkans in the mobilization of Muslims for the Waffen-SS. The French Interior Minister said in May 1945, looking back, al-Husseini was the “figurehead German espionage in all Muslim countries”. "The Day of Judgment will come, when the Muslims will crush the Jews completely. And when every tree behind which a Jew hides will say There is a Jew behind me, Kill him! Amin al-Husayni was vehemently anti-Zionist and supported the Holocaust and also visited Sarajevo in 1943 to show his support for the Nazi SS Handzar Division, giving a speech at the Beg mosque in Sarajevo to call for recruits to implement the Holocaust. Once established, it was shown that nearly 4% of the Bosnian Muslim population had joined the Nazi SS or police units, and that is one of the higher population percentages any where. The Nazi SS Handzar division was a culmination of support for such a project by Heinrich Himmler, who took a personal interest in it, and it followed the 1941 destruction of the (Spanish) Sephardic Il Kal Grande synagogue, the largest such building in the Balkans, by Germans accompanied in the destruction and desecration by Bosnian Muslims in Sarajevo in April 1941 and they were later to set up a concentration camp just one month later. The European Jewish Congress says this: "On the eve of the Shoah, the Jewish population numbered some 14,000. In 1941 Bosnia was incorporated into the Croat state. When the Germans entered Sarajevo, together with a local Bosnian Muslim mob, they destroyed the Sephardi synagogue. Bosnian Jewry was decimated by a combination of German, Ustashe (Croat Fascist), and Bosnian Muslim forces. The Mufti of Jerusalem (Haj Amin-al Husseini) was active in enlisting recruits to a Bosnian Muslim S.S. unit and in encouraging local authorities to organize the deportation and extermination of Bosnian Jewry. The Grand Mufti, also a financial contributor to the Nazi SS Handzar Division said in a radio broadcast on 20 September 1944: "No one ever thought that 140,000 Americans would become tools in Jewish hands.How would the Americans dare to Judaize Palestine? The wicked American intentions towards the Arabs are now clear, and there remain no doubts that they are endeavoring to establish a Jewish empire in the Arab world." In their operations, the Nazi SS Handzar and Nazi SS Kama Divisions would leave no living when they cam to villages to kill the population. Both Handzar and Kama were involved in ethnic cleansing of Jews in north and east Bosnia. Witnesses in Brcko and Bjeljina saw the slaughter of anyone not wearing a fez, and the same pattern of slaughter against Jews was repeated by them in Rogatica, Vlasenica, Srebrenica, and Visegrad. Green Cadre, led by Topcic, assisted the Bosnian Muslim SS Divisions in their killings of Bosnian Jews. March 1944 saw Nazi SS Handzar Division murder every Jew man, woman and child in the town of Bela Crkva. Multiply that up by everywhere they went to fulfill the wishes of the Grand Mufti.

From beginning of Islam 3

The greatest threat facing the civilized world today is its own ignorance about Islam. Unfortunately for Muslims, and considerably more so for the rest of the world, Islam is extremely strict and uncompromising, as to the loyalty and dedication of its members. Any revelation of Allah (through the prophet Muhammad) must be taken as a holy mandate, and can only be amended, or superseded, by another revelation. This has seldom occurred. All verses of the Koran and the Haddith urging death or subjugation of infidels are still in place. Since secular jurisprudence is practically nonexistent in the Muslim world, the inflexible code of the Shari'a rules. From the 7th century, and to the present, the openly stated goal of Islam is to bring the entire world into Dar Al-Islam, or the "peace" of Islam. This is a clearly defined condition under which no other system is tolerated. For Islam, any society not willing to subjugate itself, to complete Islamic authority has automatically placed itself in a state of war, or Dar Al-Harb, with Islam. Absolutely no other provocation is necessary! This is a unique concept, but for Muslims appears to be entirely logical. Their reasoning seems to be that since Allah (Muhammad) has given mankind the perfect recipe for living on earth, any society opposing His (Allah’s / Muhammad’s) holy mandates is undeserving of any consideration whatsoever. Therefore, those unenlightened souls have only themselves to blame for the consequences of not accepting Allah and Muhammad as His Last and Most Perfect Prophet. That the consequences for these “unenlightened” entail genocide, rape and slavery, as well as a host of other denigrating conditions is, in the eyes of Muslims, only their just desserts. As used by Islam, an intermediate condition, between Peace and War, is Dar Al Sulh. Dar Al-Sulh exists while Islam is attempting to gain sufficient power before fully launching into Dar Al-Harb. Nigeria, though mostly in the state of Dar Al-Sulh, is entering more into Dar Al-Harb as Muslims gain more political and demographic power. For example, the train bombings of Spain in the Spring of 2004 and those of the London transit system in the Summer of 2005 are good examples. As Muslims grow in power, such terrorist acts will become more common. You don't have to be a Christian, or even religious at all, to prove that Muhammad was a gigantic fraud, that "Allah" was a creature of Muhammad's own imagination, and that the Koran isn't worth the paper it's written on. He wanted to be even greater than Jesus Christ. That presented a serious problem, but it was a problem which he solved in his own way. His solution should have gotten him in hot water, and exposed him as a cheat and a liar but, because followers of the blind are often themselves blind, and seldom pay attention to details, he got what he wanted. Over a billion people think of him as the holiest of all prophets, and Islam as the greatest of all religions. The "Glorious" Koran, a book loaded with super-pious platitudes, endorses warfare, murder, torture, world conquest, and even suicide for "Allah's cause". Most unusual is heaven with beautiful "spouses" for those who "fight and die for "Allah." This is a carrot on a stick to encourage daring and recklessness in battle. Even suicide bombings are legitimate in the eyes of "Allah," the result of desperate and heroic methods of warfare. The ultimate goal of the Koran is to force conversion of the whole world to Islam, peacefully if possible, otherwise by coercion, enslavement, torture, murder, or any other means. Muhammad has managed to dupe many theological intellectuals by claiming that his religion is monotheistic.

"Obama's Choice"

Everyone basically everywhere has been voicing their opinion of what he should've done differently. It is basically, "Mind our own business and stay out of it." That is so much the prevailing opinion on this that it really isn't necessary to mention it in every article. That was the recommendation then and that is the recommendation now. Remember back when Obama's Presidency was just a week or two old and he tried to inject himself into a dispute between Pakistan and India? And both countries stopped bickering just long enough to turn to him and say, "Mind your own business"? Good advice, that. But it appears he has learned nothing from that. Apparently, America must "Do Something!". There's a big difference between being a leader and being a politician. Obama is a master politician, but even his slavish followers would be hard-pressed to call him a leader. Leaders get what they want by changing peoples' minds and enlisting them in a shared vision. Politicians get what they want through political calculus, tactics, stratagems, coercion, subversion of process, even lying or committing illegal acts. Obama is certainly successful a clear winner in so many battles but I can't think of any he's won through leadership. In fact, he's the most divisive politician in our lifetimes, perhaps the most divisive in America's history. I think Obama's style of decision making will become popular over the next two decades, as legions of local politicians take a page out of Obama's Governance-Through-Non-Governance Guide, realizing that taking a strong stand on any particular issue is bound to make someone mad better to keep your head down, straddle every issue, and never make an unpopular decision when you can get someone else to make it for you. Keep an eye on Colorado's Dem governor, John Hickenlooper. He used the Obama strategy recently when faced with the decision of letting the execution of an especially nasty murderer go forward, or granting him clemency. He did neither, and instead, kicked the can down the road for the next governor to decide. His re-election was seen as assured until this decision, or non-decision, now the governorship may be up for grabs. If he survives the next election, you may be calling him President Hickenlooper, circa 2020. The technique is frustrating, but it obviously works, and can be very successful for someone who keeps principle at arm's length. He seems to stand for everything that is against God. I believe he is deceptive and he just likes to say what people want to hear. There's alot of christians out there that are believing this man and letting him deceive them because they really believe he is a good christian man. Sure as president, you are the leader of a very diverse nation, but as a real christian, you would not use excuses as to why you're allowing innocent children to be murdered or saying it's not your right to impose on anyone's personal lifestyles. As a christian, you must stand on the Word and what God says. We, as a nation, should pray for our president. His government is taking us in the wrong direction. According to the Bible, he is not godly. He is pro-choice, he is pro-homosexualist, and pro-evolutionist. These views are against the Bible teachings.

From beginning of Islam 2

Historians say that pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped the moon-god by bowing in prayer toward Mecca several times a day. They would also make a pilgrimage to Mecca, run around the Kabah seven times and throw stones at the devil. And they fasted for one month, which began with the appearance of the crescent moon and ended when the crescent moon reappeared. These same rites form the core of Islam today. Muslims bow in prayer toward Mecca they make a pilgrimage to Mecca and run around the Kabah seven times and they still throw stones at the devil. They also observe the fast of Ramadan, which begins and ends with the crescent moon. Moreover, the ancient symbol of the pagan moon-god, the crescent moon, is the official symbol of Islam it appears on the flags of Muslim countries, as well as on the tops of mosques and minarets everywhere. For no Muslim can fulfill the requirements of the Quran. According to the teaching of the Quran no Muslim can enter into paradise! Religious minorities have not “flourished” under Islam. In fact, they have dwindled to mere shadows after centuries of persecution and discrimination. Some were converted from their native religion by brute force, others under the agonizing strain of dhimmitude. What Muslims call “tolerance,” others correctly identify as institutionalized discrimination. The consignment of Jews and Christians to dhimmis under Islamic rule means that they are not allowed the same religious rights and freedoms as Muslims. They cannot share their faith, for example, or build houses of worship without permission. Historically, dhimmis have often had to wear distinguishing clothing or cut their hair in a particular manner that indicates their position of inferiority and humiliation. They do not share the same legal rights as Muslims, and must even pay a poll tax (the jizya). They are to be killed or have their children taken from them if they cannot satisfy thetaxcollector’s requirements. For hundreds of years, the Christian population in occupied Europe had their sons taken away and forcibly converted into Muslim warriors (known as Jannisaries) by the Ottoman Turks. It is under this burden of discrimination and third-class status that so many religious minorities converted to Islam over the centuries. Those who didn’t often faced economic and social hardships that persist to this day and are appalling by Western standards of true religious tolerance and pluralism. For those who are not “the People of the Book,” such as Hindus and atheists, there is very little tolerance to be found once Islam establishes political superiority. The Quran tells Muslims to “fight in the way of Allah” until “religion is only for Allah.” The conquered populations face death if they do not establish regular prayer and charity in the Islamic tradition (ie. the pillars of Islam). Tamerlane and other Muslim warriors slaughtered tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists, and displaced or forcibly converted millions more over the last thousand years. Islamists in Somalia behead Christians.In Iran,they are jailed.One of the great ironies of Islam is that non-Muslims are to be treated according to the very standards by which Muslims themselves would claim the right to violent self defense were the shoe on the other foot. Islam is its own justification. Most Muslims therefore feel no need to explain the ingrained arrogance and double standard. There are about 500 verses in the Quran that speak of Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims and the punishment that he has prepared for their unbelief. There is also a tiny handful that say otherwise, but these are mostly earlier verses that many scholars consider to be abrogated by the later, more violent ones. As for Sura 109, any true Quran scholar will point out that the purpose of the verse was to distinguish Islam from the gods of the Quraysh (one of which was named "Allah") rather than to advocate religious tolerance for non-Muslims. At the time that he narrated this very early verse, Muhammad did not have any power, and thus no choice but to be "tolerant" of others. By contrast, there was no true tolerance shown when he returned to Mecca with power many years later and demanded the eviction or death of anyone who would not convert to Islam. In fact, he physically destroyed the cherished idols of the people to whom he had previously addressed in Sura 109. If tolerance simply means discouraging the mass slaughter of those of a different faith, then today's Islam generally meets this standard more often than not. But, if tolerance means allowing people of other faiths the same religious liberties that Muslims enjoy, then Islam is fundamentally the most intolerant religion under the sun.