New Congressman Thinks Quran Thumps Constitution

Rupert Pupkin · #1 12-06-2006, 08:15 AM

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

sham · #2 12-06-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

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

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

Downthestretch55 · #3 12-06-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

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 · #4 12-06-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

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 · #5 12-06-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

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 · #6 12-06-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

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 · #7 12-06-2006, 10:13 AM

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 · #8 12-06-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

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.

SentToStud · #9 12-06-2006, 11:19 AM

Quote:

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

I didn't read that he does not want to take the oath on the bible. I read that he has asked to take it with the Quran. Big difference. The author seems to have made HUGE jumps in assumptions. He quotes excessively from someone he does not care for but where are all the Congreeman-elect's own quotes?

One of two things happened here; 1. The Congressman-elect decline comment when the author asked, or, 2. The author didn't bother asking and wrote what he was going to write anyway. Either way, it's lousy journalism.

SCUDSBROTHER · #10 12-06-2006, 12:18 PM

He should of run as an Independent.The QUIRAN forbides making laws against Polygamy,and Domestic Violence.That is totally out of line with the beliefs of that Party,and they should be ashamed of this filth having a D before his name.This should have been taken care of before now.He should never have been allowed to run as a Democrat if he believes the Quiran is the true law of the land.I mean that they should never have given him votes.What could be worse than this?

brianwspencer · #11 12-06-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

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.

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

Rupert Pupkin · #12 12-06-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

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.

I don't think this article is really any different than most articles you see out there. If this guy was a Christian, it would be fair game to bring up his ties to radical Christian groups, if he had such ties. Sure you could argue that just because he has ties to the group, it does not mean that he shares their beliefs. That would be true, but it does not mean that the issue should not be discussed.

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.

GenuineRisk · #13 12-06-2006, 04:34 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

timmgirvan · #14 12-06-2006, 03:18 PM

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!

Rupert Pupkin · #15 12-06-2006, 03:29 PM

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.

Downthestretch55 · #16 12-06-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

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!

Agreed Timm,
Seems to me that there's a process to be followed AFTER someone is charged with criminal behavior...not BEFORE.