Keith Ellison: first muslim elected to congress
- Thread starter $tinkle
- Start date
¿¿¿¿????
"allah akbar" maybe????
Nuthin gets past you sherlock.
yeah, it was pretty obvious... i was going to mention that..
but not obvious and not witty enough to be funny... thus i thought it might have not been intentional...
Keith Ellison...Keith Ellison?
It sounds like at least with regards to the electorate, he is trying to pass. :biggrin:
It sounds like at least with regards to the electorate, he is trying to pass. :biggrin:
you suggesting he change his name to faruk il-hamza al-shabbaz?
Well el-Stinko (muslimaficated name) is one of the droller posters on the monkey. I sniggered but ymmv.
holy crap: i was kidding, but check this out:
and has a problem with whitey, as is made clear in an op-ed he wrote under the nom de plume keith hakim on groundhog's day in 1990.
i wonder how much he will progress (suppress?) gay rights in minnesota.
Good god!!! You mean as time goes by people mellow? Next thing you'll be telling me former KKK members join the Democrats.
just think how mellow bush will be by his 5th term.
I wonder if the honorable Elijah Muhammad is turning over in his grave seeing Keith out of bowtie. :biggrin:holy crap: i was kidding, but check this out:
and has a problem with whitey, as is made clear in an op-ed he wrote under the nom de plume keith hakim on groundhog's day in 1990.
He'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with Dobson on that one, guaranteed.
Like we saw in the thread about the gay pride parade in Israel, nothing brings fundamentalists from the three Abrahamic faiths together like a bunch of queers walking around without nooses on their necks...
So, would it be appropriate to make the charge that Xtians who take the oath of office on the Bible are really pledging allegiance to Xtian law rather than to uphold the Constitution?
oops, thought i responded to this earlier...
no, i don't; but i see your angle. perhaps a case can be made, for at least one reason: that our culture was heavily influenced by christianity, and not islam.
but muslim culture is quite different from christian culture (or at least our implementation of it). it is a manifestation of islam to not conform to the host government, but rather to slowly influence it with islam, as can be anecdotally demonstrated throughout europe.
Here's an article that expounds on this subject:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0720/p02s02-usju.html
Raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth ... on the Koran?
Citing state law, a judge bars use of the Muslim holy book, but some say the move violates the Constitution.
By Patrik Jonsson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
RALEIGH, N.C. As Muslim-Christian relations are under the spotlight around the world,US judges sometimes face a vexing question: Can witnesses raise their right hand and swear to tell the truth ... on the Koran?
The recent refusal by a Guilford County, N.C., judge to allow a Muslim woman to swear upon Islam's holy text before testifying is, in part, a new First Amendment challenge. And here in the Tar Heel state, the idea of swearing on books other than the Bible has reinvigorated a debate on the relationship between faith and truth that goes back to the founding documents of both the Carolinas and the country.
Certainly, some Americans, citing the nation's Judeo-Christian roots, dislike the use of the Koran in the court system. But, according to law scholars, allowing a range of holy books in oaths of justice may not only lead to a greater feeling of inclusion among religious minorities but also encourage them to tell the truth.
"For a long time it was part of the public trust to swear on the Bible before testimony, but today you have to ask a question: Is it really essential?" asks Derek Davis, editor of The Journal of Church and State and a professor at Baylor University, a Baptist institution in Texas.
Already, witnesses in American courts do not have to take a religious oath and can instead simply testify on pain of perjury. It's up to judges to decide what passes for an oath.
Most have apparently given other oaths wide latitude. In a federal terrorism case in 1997 in Washington D.C., for instance, the judge allowed Muslim witnesses to swear to Allah. And the practice isn't new: Mochitura Hashimoto, the Japanese submarine commander who testified in the court martial of a US Navy captain in 1945, was allowed by a military tribunal to swear on his beliefs of Shinto, the ancient religion of Japan.
But to Guilford County Superior Judge W. Douglas Albright, a 1777 North Carolina law clearly says oaths are made upon the "Holy Scriptures" - which scholars agree is a clear reference to the Bible. The Administrative Office of the Courts has so far declined a request by Muslim groups to make a rule change that would force judges to allow other religious oaths.
Since Judge Albright's decision, there's been a growing number of requests by other religious groups to have their holy texts allowable under law.
"It's gotten way out there: They've got everything from the Book of Mormon to the Book of Wicca on the list," says Judge Albright. "Our position is that the statute governs not only the type of oath, but the manner and administration of the oath, and that it's now a legislative matter to straighten out."
Legal experts say that both the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the Constitution appear to prohibit banning the Koran. Indeed, some see the Guilford County controversy as another case of a US official promoting one religion over another.
"This case is a cousin to the Ten Commandments case in Alabama, where a judge does something that's pretty obviously unconstitutional, with a goal of sending a message ... that he's for fundamental religious values," says New York University law professor Noah Feldman, author of "Divided by God."
Muslims say the judge may be tapping into a post-9/11 ferment, with unspoken inferences to terrorism. "This shows there's a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment, especially here in the United States," says Arsalan Iftikhar, legal director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington.
Desecrating the Koran
05/17/05
Why Koran is such a hot button
But the Carolinas have their own unique role in the history of oaths. British philosopher John Locke, who helped forge the Fundamental Constitutions in the Carolinas in the 1660s, believed that atheists could not hold office or testify. After all, Locke wondered, how could anyone believe what they said if they carried no fear of God?
Yet the power of oaths has waned enough to make perjury laws necessary. At the same time, the Koran can be a powerful motivator to stick to the facts.
"The only thing more compelling [to] ... South Asian Muslims is to literally swear upon your mother's head, and mothers aren't as convenient to drag around in court as a copy of the Koran," says Manish Vij, a New York blogger who has written about the case on the website Sepia Mutiny.
Still, others say Americans should not lose touch with the country's Bible-rooted foundations.
"We don't have a state-run religion in this country and it's an honor to worship here, but some traditions that we've had for 200 years need to stay," says Michele Combs, communications director at the Christian Coalition in Washington.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0720/p02s02-usju.html
Raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth ... on the Koran?
Citing state law, a judge bars use of the Muslim holy book, but some say the move violates the Constitution.
By Patrik Jonsson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
RALEIGH, N.C. As Muslim-Christian relations are under the spotlight around the world,US judges sometimes face a vexing question: Can witnesses raise their right hand and swear to tell the truth ... on the Koran?
The recent refusal by a Guilford County, N.C., judge to allow a Muslim woman to swear upon Islam's holy text before testifying is, in part, a new First Amendment challenge. And here in the Tar Heel state, the idea of swearing on books other than the Bible has reinvigorated a debate on the relationship between faith and truth that goes back to the founding documents of both the Carolinas and the country.
Certainly, some Americans, citing the nation's Judeo-Christian roots, dislike the use of the Koran in the court system. But, according to law scholars, allowing a range of holy books in oaths of justice may not only lead to a greater feeling of inclusion among religious minorities but also encourage them to tell the truth.
"For a long time it was part of the public trust to swear on the Bible before testimony, but today you have to ask a question: Is it really essential?" asks Derek Davis, editor of The Journal of Church and State and a professor at Baylor University, a Baptist institution in Texas.
Already, witnesses in American courts do not have to take a religious oath and can instead simply testify on pain of perjury. It's up to judges to decide what passes for an oath.
Most have apparently given other oaths wide latitude. In a federal terrorism case in 1997 in Washington D.C., for instance, the judge allowed Muslim witnesses to swear to Allah. And the practice isn't new: Mochitura Hashimoto, the Japanese submarine commander who testified in the court martial of a US Navy captain in 1945, was allowed by a military tribunal to swear on his beliefs of Shinto, the ancient religion of Japan.
But to Guilford County Superior Judge W. Douglas Albright, a 1777 North Carolina law clearly says oaths are made upon the "Holy Scriptures" - which scholars agree is a clear reference to the Bible. The Administrative Office of the Courts has so far declined a request by Muslim groups to make a rule change that would force judges to allow other religious oaths.
Since Judge Albright's decision, there's been a growing number of requests by other religious groups to have their holy texts allowable under law.
"It's gotten way out there: They've got everything from the Book of Mormon to the Book of Wicca on the list," says Judge Albright. "Our position is that the statute governs not only the type of oath, but the manner and administration of the oath, and that it's now a legislative matter to straighten out."
Legal experts say that both the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the Constitution appear to prohibit banning the Koran. Indeed, some see the Guilford County controversy as another case of a US official promoting one religion over another.
"This case is a cousin to the Ten Commandments case in Alabama, where a judge does something that's pretty obviously unconstitutional, with a goal of sending a message ... that he's for fundamental religious values," says New York University law professor Noah Feldman, author of "Divided by God."
Muslims say the judge may be tapping into a post-9/11 ferment, with unspoken inferences to terrorism. "This shows there's a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment, especially here in the United States," says Arsalan Iftikhar, legal director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington.
Desecrating the Koran
05/17/05
Why Koran is such a hot button
But the Carolinas have their own unique role in the history of oaths. British philosopher John Locke, who helped forge the Fundamental Constitutions in the Carolinas in the 1660s, believed that atheists could not hold office or testify. After all, Locke wondered, how could anyone believe what they said if they carried no fear of God?
Yet the power of oaths has waned enough to make perjury laws necessary. At the same time, the Koran can be a powerful motivator to stick to the facts.
"The only thing more compelling [to] ... South Asian Muslims is to literally swear upon your mother's head, and mothers aren't as convenient to drag around in court as a copy of the Koran," says Manish Vij, a New York blogger who has written about the case on the website Sepia Mutiny.
Still, others say Americans should not lose touch with the country's Bible-rooted foundations.
"We don't have a state-run religion in this country and it's an honor to worship here, but some traditions that we've had for 200 years need to stay," says Michele Combs, communications director at the Christian Coalition in Washington.
hmmm...at first blush, it does seem to be discriminatory - if not unconstitutional - to ban affirming upon the koran. and recalling jonathan sharkey was running for governor in minnesota, you must expect he should also have the right to affirm his allegiance upon the satanic verses should he had been elected.
It doesn't matter how influenced our culture was. The founding fathers set up a nation that would be all inclusive.
Also, your point about Islam not conforming is probably not that surprising. We have a very Xtian-centric culture here in this country, so it's not surprising that Muslims would feel uncomfortable completely conforming. It probably isn't any different for Xtians in Muslim countries.
barring uncovered meat, of course:
Three girls have been beheaded and another badly injured as they walked to a Christian school in Indonesia.
That aint what we was talkin' 'bout.
We were talking about whether religious folk assimilate or not. You think it is singularly a Muslim trait to not assimilate, I think it's probably not singular to Muslims.
For instance, I don't think fundamentalist Xtians have assimilated into this country yet, and how long have they been here?
Stinkle was trying to point out that Muslim countries are less inclined to let Christians assimilate into their culture as America is to Muslims.
Look how accomodating Europe is to Muslims......and you see where it gets them.
OK, and maybe that's a valid point, but it's still not what we were talking about. Do Xtians try to assimilate or take over when they feel like the culture isn't supportive of them? In the case of fundamentalist Xtians in this country, they do exactly what $tinkle is accusing Muslims of doing. IOW, it's not singular to Muslims.
ever been to a church in europe? not exactly standing room only. this in a land where christianity (or catholicism if you like) was rule of law. largely, europe has been secularized, but i predict for it to stay this way, it's going to be a tough slough.
You're still dancing around the point. You assert that Muslims are singular in not wanting to assimilate instead choosing to foist their religion on the culture around them. I point out that fundamentalist Xtians also don't wish to assimilate and try to exert their religion on the culture around them. If you want to say that it is different for this guy to swear on the Koran because Muslims are singularly different, then it might help if you actually answered this charge. Otherwise it's just a double standard, and a transparent one at that.
Actually, even if Muslims don't want to assimilate, there's still no reason for the double standard.
not exactly. i'm contrasting cultures and their subsequent gov'ts from a christian v muslim viewpoint. where there needs to be acknowledgement in this difference is looking to gov'ts where the leadership is of one faith or the other. would you really have readers here believe we are a theocracy? or is it closer to the truth we have a secular society with religious office holders? the closest you'll get in the muslim world is turkey.
as far as your spurious charge of a double-standard goes (if indeed you have made a veiled one, otherwise kindly disregard), please go back & read my stating of quite the opposite
I don't think it matters what the government is. What matters is whether the people under that government conform or try to impose their religion on others. As you say, this is a secular government, so you contend that Muslims don't want to assimilate since they want Islam to inform government practices. That's not much different from fundementalist Xtians who want the same thing.
I have to admit that I'm a little confused as to where you stand on this. Do you think he should be allowed to swear on the Koran? Do you think that he is swearing to Sharia law when he does so and not to US law? Do you think the Xtians swearing on the Bible are swearing to Biblical law and not to US law?
ahh, i see our disconnect: prepend 'fundamentalist' to 'muslim'; then we'll be more in-line
never thought about it until greyhound posted the csmonitor link. seems to me if rep. ellison wants to swear on the koran to uphold our constitution, and protect us from all enemies (foreign & domestic), then so be it. i would give benefit of doubt and expect that his personal allegience is to our country, as defined by our documents, legislature, courts, etc.
yet another difference is we are directed to obey the laws of our land, to include slavery.
ok, off to fight 30mph headwind...
OK, then no disagreement here.
Coming in a little late here, but the Christian approach has its basis in scriptural teachings such as 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's.' There are no such teachings in Islam, Islam and the state being one and the same for early Muslims; Islam should not be subject to or subordinate to anything other than God.
Hence it is easy for Christians to participate in a state that is not wholly based on Christian teachings as it does not contravene their faith. Muslims on the other hand have a religious (or holy) duty to strugle (jihad) against any law that contravenes the sharia, so could not willingly fully conform to a secular state. That they do in certain nations does cause problems.
And it's not absolute either.
My God man, who ever said that it was?
It evolved. Just like us. No accidents there...