Like many people, I'm skeptical of any mud-slinging at Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, who will take the oath next month. I respect Ellison's desire to use a Koran in his swearing-in ceremony, but think it would be appropriate for him to have a Bible there, as well. But now Ellison has been linked to the North American Imams Federation, a radical Islamic group that supports Sharia, or Islamic law.
Ellison gave a lecture for NAIF, which was listed on the agenda as "American Open University." But to law enforcement officials, >American Open University is known as "Wahabi Online." There's more from the WND article:
American Open University supports Sharia, or Islamic law. And its founder and chairman, Jaafar Sheikh Idris, has denounced the U.S system of democracy as "the antithesis of Islam" and argued no man has the right to make laws outside Allah's laws expressed in the Quran.
"There is a basic difference between Islam and this form of democracy," he says. "The basic difference is that in Islam it is [Allah's] law as expressed in the Quran and the Sunna that is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate.
"No one can be a Muslim who makes or freely accepts or believes that anyone has the right to make or accept legislation that is contrary to that divine law," Idris adds. "Examples of such violations include the legalization of alcoholic drinks, gambling, homosexuality, usury or interest, and even adoption."
Conversely, laws prohibiting polygamy and domestic violence also violate the Quran.
Further, he maintains that no Muslim elected to Congress or the White House can swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution and still be a Muslim.
"No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism – which is practically another religion. For Muslims, the word 'religion' does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviors and details of living," Idris says. "Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims because it requires us to abandon [Allah's] decree for that of a man."
He further explains: "Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides Muslims through every detail of running the state and their lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the laws of [Allah]."
Also, he asserts that "there is absolutely no compromise: Any belief that contradicts Islam is false."
I think Ellison can reasonably balance the demands of his religion versus his public life, much as John F. Kennedy assured Americans that the Pope wouldn't run the country. Nor is he the only person being questioned as to how much influence his religious beliefs will have on his public service (just look at the flurry of stories on Mitt Romney and Mormonism).
But it is a concern that he has associated himself with groups who clearly and unequivocably state that there's no compatibility between Islam and democracy. That is something Ellison will have to address.
I respect Ellison's desire to use a Koran in his swearing-in ceremony, but think it would be appropriate for him to have a Bible there, as well.
ReplyDeleteBecause to you the Bible is not a sacred book, but a totemic object that must be carried to show submission to tribal tradition?
If Ellison is a devout Muslim, and I see no reason to suppose he is not, it would be both violently contrary to American tradition (the tradition of freedom of religion), and extremely inappropriate, for him to have a Bible as well as the book sacred to his own religious belief.
You appeared to be arguing, in this and the previous thread, that it is usually the Bible that is carried by members of Congress at the swearing-in ceremony, not because they are mostly Christians and it is the book sacred to Christians (because if that were the reasoning, obviously Congresspeople of a different religion would use a different book) but because the Bible is a tribal idol for Americans, to be carried as a traditional object regardless of faith.
No, I am not making the argument you keep trying to say I am making. I think that because of the significance of the Bible in the forming of this country, as well as public life here for more than 200 years that it would be appropriate for him to acknowledge that in a *public* cerremony.
ReplyDeleteWhat better way to show the pluralism of our society than for him to acknowledge both traditions?
I think that because of the significance of the Bible in the forming of this country, as well as public life here for more than 200 years that it would be appropriate for him to acknowledge that in a *public* cerremony.
ReplyDeleteWhat part of the American Revolution, the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence do you see as having been "formed" from the Bible?
Don't you see that it's completely disrespectful not only to Ellison, and all other American Muslims, but also to Christians who respect the Bible as a sacred text rather than as an American totemic object, to expect members of Congress to treat a religious book like that?
Freedom of religion doesn't and shouldn't mean automatic disrespect for religions you don't share. Just because you're not a Christian, doesn't mean you should be arguing that the Bible isn't a sacred book. I don't identify as a Christian, but I was brought up by Christians and have Christian friends and relatives - and all of them would be upset at having the Bible treated as you want it treated.
What better way to show the pluralism of our society than for him to acknowledge both traditions?
But there is no American tradition of members of Congress treating a sacred book as an American totem. The American tradition is freedom of religion, not disrespect towards other religions - and certainly not towards Christianity, as you seem to argue. Why start this tradition now?
If it's traditional for members of Congress to use the book sacred to their faith at the swearing-in ceremony, then it should be the book sacred to their faith - or none, as the Constitution requires that no religious test shall ever be administered to an office-holder.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Have you bothered to read what Prager has said both in this instance and about the influence of Christianity and the Bible on the founding of this country? How about this: that our rights come, not from the government, which can take them away, but from God? You should really try reading before posting anymore.
ReplyDeleteStop trying to put words in my mouth. I don't consider the Bible to be a "totem." And showing respect for the dominant religion in this country and the ideals upon which it was founded isn't disrespectful to other religions. That idea is part of the problem with modern America: that in showing deference to the traditions long used, it is somehow disrespectful of other opinions.
How about this: that our rights come, not from the government, which can take them away, but from God?
ReplyDeleteYes, but what does that have to do with the Bible? Please cite, for me, the Bible chapter or verse from which you say this belief is derived. It's unquestionably a religious belief - but not a Christian one.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I don't consider the Bible to be a "totem."
Then why are you arguing that it ought to be treated like a totem, rather than like a sacred book? If you want it "there", not because it's sacred but because to you symbolizes American tradition, you do want to treat the Bible as a national totem - which is thoroughly disrespectful to Christians who regard it as a sacred book.
And showing respect for the dominant religion in this country and the ideals upon which it was founded
The ideals upon which the United States of America were founded clearly and explicitly include freedom of religion, and which therefore absolutely prohibit any religion being considered "dominant" by Congress. And the Constitution (Article IV) expressly forbids that anyone should ask Ellison to have any other sacred book that the one of his choice - no test of religion, remember?
Demanding that the Bible should be present as a national totem representing America could be arguable as not being a test of religion for non-Christians, but it would thoroughly offend all Christians who regard the Bible as sacred, not as a mere totem or nationalistic symbol as you seem to think it is.
So it's not possible either way: if the Bible is to be present as a sacred book, it's a test of religion that would bar non-Christians, and would therefore be forbidden: if the Bible is to be present as an irreligious nationalistic totem, it's a test of religion that would bar Christians, and is therefore forbidden.
Yes, but what does that have to do with the Bible? Please cite, for me, the Bible chapter or verse from which you say this belief is derived. It's unquestionably a religious belief - but not a Christian one.
ReplyDeleteHow about Genesis 1:27? That's a good place to start. But really, you can read the Bible in its entireity and come away with the idea that we derive our rights not from man but from God. Supposedly, you've read the Federalist papers. Try reading a little George Washington.
Then why are you arguing that it ought to be treated like a totem, rather than like a sacred book? If you want it "there", not because it's sacred but because to you symbolizes American tradition, you do want to treat the Bible as a national totem - which is thoroughly disrespectful to Christians who regard it as a sacred book.
I'm not the one arguing this. You are. And using the Bible in a ceremonial way is no more disrespectful than prayers before the opening of Congress or "under God" in the Pledge.
The ideals upon which the United States of America were founded clearly and explicitly include freedom of religion, and which therefore absolutely prohibit any religion being considered "dominant" by Congress. And the Constitution (Article IV) expressly forbids that anyone should ask Ellison to have any other sacred book that the one of his choice - no test of religion, remember?
Now you're trying to make a legalistic argument. No one is arguing that Ellison is required to use a Bible, just that it would be a good thing that he does. And Christianity is the dominant religion in America. That's just a fact. There are more Christians than any other religious group. This is different from having a national religion.
So it's not possible either way: if the Bible is to be present as a sacred book, it's a test of religion that would bar non-Christians, and would therefore be forbidden: if the Bible is to be present as an irreligious nationalistic totem, it's a test of religion that would bar Christians, and is therefore forbidden.
This has to be one of the worst arguments you've ever made and you've made some bad ones. The Bible is a sacred book to some people. It certainly was to the Founding Fathers. But that doesn't make it a "religious test" simply because some, including me, argue that it would be good for Ellison to include it in his public swearing-in ceremony. If Ellison's fellow representatives decided not to seat him (which they could do constitutionally, btw) because he is Muslim, that would be a religious test. Are you really as ignorant about this subject as you appear to be? Or do you just like to argue?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJes,
ReplyDeleteI'm deleting your post because (a) you keep repeating falsehoods and (b) you made your argument. Now it's time for you to go find something useful to do with your time.
I guess that's one way for you to admit you lost the argument. :-)
ReplyDeleteNot at all. It's one way of saying when you keep lying and mischaracterizing arguments, you lose the privilege of posting.
ReplyDelete