New Congressman Thinks Quran Thumps Constitution

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by sham

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

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".

[Rupert Pupkin]

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".

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.

[brianwspencer]

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.

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 an ideologically flawed piece of crap.

[somerfrost]

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.

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!

[GenuineRisk]

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!

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.

[somerfrost]

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.

You got me there...that's one reason why I'll probably always be a solitary and not join a coven...I wouldn't subject others to that!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

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

This, in certain circles, is referred to as "calling a spade a spade."

[GenuineRisk]

Rupert, how many Congressmen and high-up officials trumpet their Christianity at every opportunity? I don't notice Bush saying he answers to the Constitution; he says he answers to a higher Father, for example. What about Scalia's membership in Opus Dei?

Of course this guy should take his oath on the Quaran. He's not Christian; the point of taking the oath on the Bible is that you're taking an oath on what you perceive as a holy work of truth. For a Muslim to be expected to take in on the Bible-- why not make him take it on MAD Magazine? S'all the same to him. By taking it on the Quaran, he's making the pledge mean something to him.

[Downthestretch55]

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.

Still a bit confused Rupert.
Did a majority of voters elect him to represent them?
Did he declare his "patriotism"?
Should he be denied the opportunity to represent those that elected him because someone "suspects" that he will do something wrong?
If that's the case, you and I could be imprisoned because someone "thinks" we'll rob a bank or murder someone.
The arguements presented in the article are quite thin. Then again, "thin ice" seems to be slippery enough for those that chose to venture on to it.
Heck, you never know...sometimes you just don't slip and slide, you might even fall through and find yourself up to your neck in an icy quagmire.