Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There is a new congressman who happens to be a Muslim and he appears to think that the Quran thumps the US Constitution. some peope qquestion whether this guy is fit to be a congressman. He does not want to take his oath on the Bible. Do you guys have a problem with this guy? Is the criticism he has received warranted?

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53241

Originally Posted by sham

Any legislator-to-be that disavows the US constitution should be run out of town.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Sham,
I'm confused. Where in the Constitution does it state that those that serve in government must be sworn in on the Bible?
Best I could find was something called the First Amendment that says something about "freedom of religion".

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That's not the main issue. The main issue is whether this guy is fit to serve if he thinks that the Quran trumps the US Constitution and if he thinks that he does not need to follow US laws. The article said that he's involved with a group that thinks they don't have to obey US laws.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Well, does he think that Quran trumps the Constitution? We don't know. In all fairness, the writer of the article makes some fairly outlandish assumptions based on connections. I am connected to the Derby Trail message board, and Repent spews racist and homophobic rhetoric while promoting genocide on here. The writer of that article would likely connect the two and say that I too, advocate "eliminating" all homosexuals because I post here too.

See the flaw in that logic? Ellison is an elected congressman and his electorate had every chance to examine these issues that make him allegedly "unfit" to serve. The biggest one that everyone is freaking out about? He's a Muslim.

I'm having the same conversation in a Christian forum online right now -- it's really amazing to me how quickly the majority Christians are willing to forsake freedom of religion because it's a religion that's not their own. We should just change it to "freedom of Christianity," so that they don't have to pretend to actually support freedom of religion anymore.

Basically what I'm saying? This article is a partisan, ideologically flawed piece of crap.

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Wait until they elect a Wiccan Congressperson and he/she wants to take the oath skyclad...lol!! I agree with Brian...his religion is his business, if he violates laws then that will be addressed...apparently he has managed to live his entire life up to now without blowing up buildings, why is it now a concern??? He should swear his oath on whatever book he deems holy...I don't care if it's the next issue of XMen! this is nothing more than religious intolerance all dressed up as concern for the Constitution!

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Hilarious, Somer. I've always felt that if God/Goddess really wanted people to go around naked, he/she would not have made so many of them unattractive.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That's not the main issue. The main issue is whether this guy is fit to serve if he thinks that the Quran trumps the US Constitution and if he thinks that he does not need to follow US laws. The article said that he's involved with a group that thinks they don't have to obey US laws.

Originally Posted by somerfrost

this is nothing more than religious intolerance all dressed up as concern for the Constitution!

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There is a new congressman who happens to be a Muslim and he appears to think that the Quran thumps the US Constitution. some peope qquestion whether this guy is fit to be a congressman. He does not want to take his oath on the Bible. Do you guys have a problem with this guy? Is the criticism he has received warranted?

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53241

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

He should never have been allowed to run as a Democrat if he believes the Quiran is the true law of the land.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Does he though? That's what we're all asking in this entire thread. The article that Rupert linked to is a piece of journalistic trash. The author just makes outrageous claims regarding Ellison and his character and his beliefs with ZERO evidence to back them up.

Which leads me to believe that it's just fear and smear journalism, which just means i'm not really worried about it.

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Just so all you folks know.....the new congressmen are sworn in 'en masse" so Ellison won't be touching anything! However, there are subsequent photo ops where they do it up nice for the hometown folk...and this is where Ellison can make his "statement" I personally don't care what he does..as long as he serves with dignity and brings something other than rhetoric to the Congressional Table!

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

By the way, I think they are going after this guy because of the radical groups and the radical beliefs of the groups that he has ties to. I think they are also going after him because of his behavior. If this guy was just a nice, responsible member of society, with no ties to radical groups, and he happened to be a Muslim, I don't think this article would have ever been written.

So I think you are wrong if you think the only reason they are going after him is because he is a Muslim.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

does anyone at this time have any evidence that he is at the moment directly connected to any dangerous groups? he may once have been connected to radical groups (though evangelicals have many radical beliefs too, does that make them unfit to serve in congress? nope.), but george bush was once directly connected to whisky bottles, and we let him be president. so if there's no evidence of it being a current danger to our country, then there should be no problem.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here is a quote from the article:

That would make alcohol illegal. It would make homosexuality illegal. I don't even know what the punishment for homosexuality is in Islam. I believe it's imprisonment or possibly even death.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

By the way, did you read that this guy failed to pay more than 40 parking tickets and had his driver's license suspended twice. He also failed to pay his taxes which resulted in liens being put on his home. You could argue that this guy shows a pattern of disrespect for US laws.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I have said before, fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam are more alike than they are different. Other than their choice of prophet, their adherents pretty much want exactly the same things- dead gays, no fun vices and women uneducated, pregnant and in bee-keeper suits. Woohoo! Good times.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here is a quote from the article:

"But within days of being elected, Ellison held a workshop on politics for a group closely affiliated with a radical Islamic school that preaches no Muslim can pledge loyalty to the Constitution or make laws outside the laws of the Quran, which the school's leaders assert is the "supreme law" of the land, trumping all man-made laws including the U.S. Constitution."

Brian, This guy's campaign was backed by CAIR. The founder of that group believes the Quran should replace the Constitution. That would make alcohol illegal. It would make homosexuality illegal. I don't even know what the punishment for homosexuality is in Islam. I believe it's imprisonment or possibly even death.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I have said before, fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam are more alike than they are different. Other than their choice of prophet, their adherents pretty much want exactly the same things- dead gays, no fun vices and women uneducated, pregnant and in bee-keeper suits. Woohoo! Good times.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Hey, Rupert, heard about this guy named Jack Abramoff? And this guy named DeLay? I hear they really respect US laws, too... did they ever have any influence in government, do you know?

I think parking tickets and property tax are city and state laws. While it's a dumbass thing to do, and clearly he got busted for it, it's not showing disrespect for federal law.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

You know, I'm not that worried nor am I really going to dig into this guy's history. I imagine if he was actually dangerous that much of this would have surfaced before the vote. From the conversations that I've had on the other forum regarding this issue -- it's all just a bunch of crap dressed up as concern for our country. It has everything to do with him being a Muslim. If he were actually patently radical and/or dangerous, there is no chance in hell he would have been elected.

Look on the bright side -- let's say I'm wrong. Let's say he's as radical as they come, let's say he's a Bin Laden in a Congressman's clothing. Let's say all that you're so worried about is true. What the hell is he going to do about it? Are we really worried that the power of his vote (which mind you, accounts for roughly two-tenths of ONE percent of the entire House of Representatives) is going to Islamicize this country? Are we really worried that his two-tenths of one percent is going to outlaw alcohol and punish homosexuals with death?

A classic case of the Christian right forgetting about the proverbial "bigger fish to fry."

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

I find it curious that you'd speak for a group that you have no idealogical leanings invested. Your last line makes no sense at all!

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

GR: I disagree heartily! The BABOONS who prance around on TV are hardly true reps for the Gospel. And the those inbreds who show up at funerals will be sorely mistaken when they get to the "Pearly Gates" Any radical faction is bad, and I don't think we should dismiss Islamic extremists lightly. This is a completely new animal..with new and agressive agendas. Extremists in France are burning 112 cars a day and Muslims in Germany have set a goal of controlling the country by 2015. That's scary,by anyones' logic!

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Timm, first of all, review my post where I say "fundamentalist Christians." Of course I don't think they are your average Christian, anymore than I think fundy Muslems are the average Muslem. That's just crazy talk. ;) But I disagree with you about propensity for violence-- there are doctors dead at the hands of fundamentalist Christians, 180 dead Oklahomans thanks to a right-wing Christian, and several dead young gay men at the hands of Christians, and that's just in our country. Do you want to discuss Bosnia and the Christians killing Moslems there? Remember?

I do agree with you that Islam is facing a more obvious crisis right now-- it has based much of its identity on staying true to the past, and now it is smack up against a secularized modernity and the result currently ain't pretty. But fundamentalism in any faith is bad, and if we are to have the moral high ground in condemning fundamentalism in a minority faith in this nation, we jolly well better be just as harsh on fundamentalists in the majority faith in this country. Right now we accuse one of terrorism and turn a blind eye to the other. But killing someone because you think you're doing God's will is terrorism, no matter who your prophet is. And, to get back to the point of the article Rupert posted, we do have many, many people in elected and appointed federal office with some pretty skewed views on Christianity. But it's only when someone who may or may not have a skewed view in another faith gets elected that the media freaks out.

Speaking of folks with skewed views, anyone see that picture of John Ashcroft underneath the once-again unrobed statue of Justice? I've never been so happy to see a bare hooter.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

what???

i seriously don't get what your saying.

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Brian: It's pretty simple...you don't espouse the beliefs of the Christian right,but you feel free to speak for them as to how they feel or what they think?

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

You know, I'm not that worried nor am I really going to dig into this guy's history. I imagine if he was actually dangerous that much of this would have surfaced before the vote. From the conversations that I've had on the other forum regarding this issue -- it's all just a bunch of crap dressed up as concern for our country. It has everything to do with him being a Muslim. If he were actually patently radical and/or dangerous, there is no chance in hell he would have been elected.

Look on the bright side -- let's say I'm wrong. Let's say he's as radical as they come, let's say he's a Bin Laden in a Congressman's clothing. Let's say all that you're so worried about is true. What the hell is he going to do about it? Are we really worried that the power of his vote (which mind you, accounts for roughly two-tenths of ONE percent of the entire House of Representatives) is going to Islamicize this country? Are we really worried that his two-tenths of one percent is going to outlaw alcohol and punish homosexuals with death?

A classic case of the Christian right forgetting about the proverbial "bigger fish to fry."

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Brian: your quote is listed above....A classic case.... you are speaking about how they think(presuming to know) So how can you do that if you dont think like them or believe in what you think they espouse? It is pretty hard to misinrpret a one liner!

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The only thing in that entire quote that has anything to do with the Christian right is the last line, and so I will address that.

It has nothing to do with how they think -- it is how I view the priorities of the Christian right and their politics.

Note that this whole uproar is really only coming from the far Christian right. There aren't a whole lot of liberals complaining that this man wants to take his ceremonial oath on the Quran, because there is no harm in it unless it's a religious objection. With that said, I liken it to gay marriage. I view their priorities, as projected in the press releases they put out, the columns they write, and the legislation they champion - as skewed.

Be against gay marriage, totally their prerogative. But don't focus all of the group's political clout on that issue when kids are starving and uninsured. Go ahead and be wildly afraid that ONE Muslim congressman is going to somehow overthrow the Constitution and waste resources attacking him when poverty runs rampant in the very same peoples' backyards.

That to me, is the classic case of the Christian right chasing stupid issues that don't REALLY affect anyone, or anyone's way of life -- when the proverbial "bigger fish to fry" are sitting there totally untouched because the group's political energy and clout is being squandered worrying about the little fish, aka gay marriage and now this ridiculous little flap over the Quran.

I believe they think in extremely skewed, and often hateful ways -- and since I am incapable of doing that, it would actually be impossible for me to try to speak for them.

Now, if you still believe I am attempting to speak for the Christian right, please let me know where and I can clarify further because it's the furthest from what I am trying to do. I hope this cleared that up.

Originally Posted by GPK

Brian, what denomination are you?

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The only thing in that entire quote that has anything to do with the Christian right is the last line, and so I will address that.

It has nothing to do with how they think -- it is how I view the priorities of the Christian right and their politics.

Note that this whole uproar is really only coming from the far Christian right. There aren't a whole lot of liberals complaining that this man wants to take his ceremonial oath on the Quran, because there is no harm in it unless it's a religious objection. With that said, I liken it to gay marriage. I view their priorities, as projected in the press releases they put out, the columns they write, and the legislation they champion - as skewed.

Be against gay marriage, totally their prerogative. But don't focus all of the group's political clout on that issue when kids are starving and uninsured. Go ahead and be wildly afraid that ONE Muslim congressman is going to somehow overthrow the Constitution and waste resources attacking him when poverty runs rampant in the very same peoples' backyards.

That to me, is the classic case of the Christian right chasing stupid issues that don't REALLY affect anyone, or anyone's way of life -- when the proverbial "bigger fish to fry" are sitting there totally untouched because the group's political energy and clout is being squandered worrying about the little fish, aka gay marriage and now this ridiculous little flap over the Quran.


Now, if you still believe I am attempting to speak for the Christian right, please let me know where and I can clarify further because it's the furthest from what I am trying to do. I hope this cleared that up.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

From the conversations that I've had on the other forum regarding this issue -- it's all just a bunch of crap dressed up as concern for our country. It has everything to do with him being a Muslim. If he were actually patently radical and/or dangerous, there is no chance in hell he would have been elected.

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Brian: please note that the article link is from WorldNewsDaily...hardly a Christian right wing site! So...what we have is you speaking about the Christian right reacting to Ellison and the Quoran...which is not what happened! So...once again your bias shows through. You can be what ever you want to Brian...gay,liberal,muslim,Rastafarian...please..j ust know what you talking about when you pretend to know what somebody is about!