I think, though, that a lot of the hooplah regarding Ellison come from a rather checkered past that he has had.
Let me repeat that I don't care whether a congressweenie swears on a Bible, a Quran, or a used kleenex.
Let me also repeat that I think that this is a publicity stunt.
Having said that:
But Ellison is dogged by questions about his faith, particularly after disclosures about his past associations with the Nation of Islam, a group led by Louis Farrakhan.
While Ellison has since denounced Farrakhan, Jewish leaders say the candidate's ties to the organization remain an issue.
"For Jews, there's no ambiguity when it comes to the Nation of Islam," said Stephen Silberfarb, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas. "It's a group that hates the Jewish people."
Around 1990, Ellison _ then a University of Minnesota law student known as Keith E. Hakim _ wrote several columns in the student newspaper that are getting a second look.
One column defended Farrakhan against charges of anti-Semitism; a second suggested the creation of a state for black residents. In 1995, Ellison helped organize a delegation to Farrakhan's Million Man March in Washington.
Now others are raising the same concerns about Ellison, especially about his relationship with the Nation of Islam. That group has been working to improve the conditions for African Americans, but has been criticized for being anti-Semitic, anti-gay and anti-white.
When he was in law school in 1990, Ellison wrote a column in the University of Minnesota's student newspaper defending Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam's leader. In another column he called for a separate nation for blacks.
Ellison was also a member of the Black Law Student Association and was criticized for sponsoring anti-semitic speakers at the U of M.
"My recollections of Keith are of that person who was very much in support of the Nation of Islam and their messages they tried to convey to the larger community," says Dan Weiss, a University of Minnesota Law School classmate of Ellison's. He was also a member of the Law School's Jewish Caucus.
Back then Weiss says Ellison would downplay or ignore some of the hateful messages portrayed by the Nation of Islam. Even so, Weiss and another Jewish law student say they never got the impression that Ellison himself was anti-Semitic.
Weiss doesn't live in Minneapolis now so he hasn't payed too much attention to Ellison's recent political career. But he says Ellison should explain whether his views have changed since then.
"If you're going to latch on to a very strong, but racist, movement, you have to be sure to explain why that happened so people in the community know why that happened so they know that you really have changed," Weiss says.
Ellison, a criminal defense attorney who converted to Islam as a college student, denounced Farrakhan, and he won the endorsement of a Minneapolis Jewish newspaper.
A statement released by Steve Hunegs, executive director-designate of the Jewish Community Relations Council, expressed optimism about the election results.
"The election of Keith Ellison as the first Muslim in Congress is a ground-breaking event in American politics. It also presents a significant opportunity for Minnesota's Jewish community," said Hunegs. "Our community has an historic tradition of working with other faith, ethnic and racial groups to achieve goals important to all Minnesotans: religious pluralism, protection of civil rights, eradication of hate crimes and social justice advocacy."
Hunegs added the JCRC looks forward to working with Ellison to work toward finding peace in the Middle East.
Belle, to say that people of Islam hate white people because of the Nation of Islam, is like saying Christians hate black people because of the Church of Jesus Christ-Christian. Like Abigail said, they're both small parts of a larger whole.
Let me repeat that I don't care whether a congressweenie swears on a Bible, a Quran, or a used kleenex.
So perhaps some of the concerns regarding Ellison are not purely religious bigotry, but are concerns based on disturbing aspects from his past.
Again, just trying to bring in these additional data points...
Considering that those things about Ellison's past ties with the Nation of Islam, etc., are not WIDELY known (outside of MN), but the bigotry being aimed at Ellison reaches far beyond MN, I'd have to say I doubt it. Religious bigotry doesn't wait -- until people have done in-depth research -- before rearing its ugly head.
Ive heard that, but havent seen anything substantial beyond allegations and conjecture on that one.
The CAIR WEBSITE is quick to denounce any any all acts of terrorism.
Fair question.
But before I continue, let me state again, I don't care personally one way or the other. i'm just trying to provide some additional information on some of the background that might explain the furor over his use of a Quran for his swearing-in photo op:
Nihad Awad, executive director of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, flew to Minneapolis for an Aug. 25 fundraiser for Ellison
More than 1,000 people turned out on Saturday at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) banquet in Arlington, Va., to hear addresses by several elected officials, including Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in Congress.
I think the above two establish somewhat of a connection between Ellison and CAIR. There's other references, but that shows the point.
As far as CAIR's ties to terrorism, apparently Barbara Boxer has some concerns:
In a highly unusual move, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California has rescinded an award to an Islamic activist in her home state because of the man’s connections to a major American Muslim organization that recently has been courted by leading political figures and even the FBI.
Boxer’s office confirmed to NEWSWEEK that she has withdrawn a “certificate of accomplishment” to Sacramento activist Basim Elkarra after learning that he serves as an official with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). After directing her staff to look into CAIR, Boxer “expressed concern” about some past statements and actions by the group, as well as assertions by some law enforcement officials that it “gives aid to international terrorist groups,” according to Natalie Ravitz, the senator’s press spokeswoman.
Charles Schumer also has some concerns about CAIR:
Yet, Ellison is causing fresh concerns for some voters. He recently went to Florida to raise campaign funds at a party hosted by an official of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group accused by U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and others of alliances with terrorists. The council is running a TV commercial in Minnesota vigorously denying such ties.
You will see within that link the text "www.hlf.org" -- that was the URL for a group called the "Holy Land Foundation."
According to Wikipedia (multiple citations therein), both the US government and the European Union have linked it to Hamas and had it shut down as a terrorist organization.
So, if Boxer and Schumer (neither of whom are friendly with Bush) are concerned about being linked with CAIR, I'd say there just might be something there...
But, again, that's Minnesota's problem. I haven't lived in Minnesota for over 25 years and so it isn't mine.
Mark you definitely always do your homework but this is a little too conspiratorial for me-- I read all your links but I dont have an eye or mind inclined toward "genuine spiritual suspicion" nor do I have an inside track to what Boxer and Schumer obscure concerns maybe. They have yet to make any public statements that I know of, release any valid information or have anything other than unsubstantiated suspicions at this point
practical solutions for human suffering everywhere.
From Wikipedia
"They have provided support to victims after disasters and wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Turkey, and in the United States (Iowa floods, Texas tornadoes, and the Oklahoma City bombing)."
Also from Wikipedia
"Treasury officials conceded that a "substantial amount" of the money raised goes to worthy causes"
and, like many things since the initial hysteria after 9/11
"no accused charity or any senior officer has been convicted on a charge of terrorism and some charities still face no criminal charges."
They apparently, according to the Wikipedia article, got shut down and their assets frozen for funding schools in Palestine (schools?--).
I could be wrong but they sound like a thousand and one other non profit charities except that they happen to be of the wrong religion than is acceptable right now, as is CAIR, who is trying to improve their lot and overcome this period of inquisitions.
But thats just me.
Personally I got to hold a Gutenberg Bible in my hands last year and it is something that I'll always remember .
I doubt that its a publicity stunt at all, given the opportunity and the reason I would love to hold any of Jeffersons books in my hands, Im not even a Muslim but I would feel honored to hold his Quran (or any of his books). I would think it would be especially gratifying and meaningful for the first Muslim elected to the house to hold the Quran of the man who wrote so eloquently about freedom of religion as part of our national foundation as he watched it lived out....but again thats just me
I've already stated what I think so I won't repeat myself on that. Jefferson was dang kewl in my book and I'd be honored to hold any book of his. Knowing it's all ceremonial makes it laughable no matter who is getting sworn in on what.
What concerns me now is if that guy believes this and if that becomes a majority of the elected government officials.
I figure if he believes that then he was too uneducated to be elected and if he did manage to get elected believing that, his political career will be short.
While Ellison has acknowledged an association with the Nation of Islam in the 1990s, he denounced Farrakhan and Nation of Islam in a May 28, 2006, letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas:
"I saw in the Nation of Islam, and specifically the Million Man March, an effort to promote African-American self-sufficiency, personal responsibility, and community economic development. I did not adequately scrutinize the positions and statements of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, and Khalid Muhammed. I wrongly dismissed concerns that they were anti-Semitic. They were and are anti-Semitic and I should have come to that conclusion earlier than I did. I regret that I didn't. But at no time did I ever share their hateful views or repeat or approve of their hateful statements directed at Jews, gays or any other group. "
Ellison also stated in the letter, "I have long since distanced myself from and rejected the Nation of Islam due to its propagation of bigoted and anti-Semitic ideas and statements, as well as other issues ... and I reject and condemn the anti-Semitic statements and actions of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, and Khalid Muhammed."
Not being from DMiller's neck of the woods, I don't know much about this new Congressman. But it sounds like people who've had a chance to scrutinize him enough to endorse him believe he's telling the truth about this.
One thing to keep in mind is that the Nation of Islam (Farrakhan's group) has nothing to do with actual Islam. They call themselves Muslims, but they're about as real Muslim as Mormons are Christian. Also it is true that the NoI promote some racist beliefs against white "devils." Of course, not everyone who is a member of the NoI are racist or bad, it's just like us when we were in TWI I suppose.
Also, to address dmiller's post, the U.S. has never been a "melting pot" and has always treated immigrants like dirt. The Know-Nothings were a sort of anti-Irish Minutemen type group that were more successful in their reign of terror than the Minutemen are. They had office-holding politicians and police working with them to help murder and cover up the murders of immigrants. If you look at our history, immigrants were always demonized and hated. The Irish and Italians were said to be an invading army to take over the U.S. for the Pope, similar to how the white supremacists invented the "reconquistadora" story about Mexican immigrants. The Polish and Germans were also mistreated and hated. Why do you think there are so many jokes about Polish people? The Germans had it even worse, considering the wars that they were involved with. Also don't forget how blacks were enslaved and brought here and are still not treated equally, or the genocide committed against the native americans many times throughout our history.
So no, we're not a melting pot, and we're just barely not as bad as we used to be. The way it works out is that as a new group of immigrant comes, the old ones get accepted as being "white" and everybody gangs up on the newer groups. The Irish used to be called n****rs turned inside out, and now they're considered as white as anyone of British descent.
As to the main topic of this, I don't really care what the guy swears on in his private ceremony. As others have pointed out, in the official swearing in he uses nothing. It's just that he has a private ceremony to satisfy his own religious beliefs or his own ego. As long as he does a good job and represents the people of his community well, that's what matters.
Mark you definitely always do your homework but this is a little too conspiratorial for me-- I read all your links but I dont have an eye or mind inclined toward "genuine spiritual suspicion" nor do I have an inside track to what Boxer and Schumer obscure concerns maybe. They have yet to make any public statements that I know of, release any valid information or have anything other than unsubstantiated suspicions at this point
practical solutions for human suffering everywhere.
From Wikipedia
"They have provided support to victims after disasters and wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Turkey, and in the United States (Iowa floods, Texas tornadoes, and the Oklahoma City bombing)."
Also from Wikipedia
"Treasury officials conceded that a "substantial amount" of the money raised goes to worthy causes"
and, like many things since the initial hysteria after 9/11
"no accused charity or any senior officer has been convicted on a charge of terrorism and some charities still face no criminal charges."
They apparently, according to the Wikipedia article, got shut down and their assets frozen for funding schools in Palestine (schools?--).
I could be wrong but they sound like a thousand and one other non profit charities except that they happen to be of the wrong religion than is acceptable right now, as is CAIR, who is trying to improve their lot and overcome this period of inquisitions.
But thats just me.
Personally I got to hold a Gutenberg Bible in my hands last year and it is something that I'll always remember .
I doubt that its a publicity stunt at all, given the opportunity and the reason I would love to hold any of Jeffersons books in my hands, Im not even a Muslim but I would feel honored to hold his Quran (or any of his books). I would think it would be especially gratifying and meaningful for the first Muslim elected to the house to hold the Quran of the man who wrote so eloquently about freedom of religion as part of our national foundation as he watched it lived out....but again thats just me
MStar,
And there are many people who believe Hamas and Hezbollah are charitable organizations as well (seriously). And both organizations also do a significant amount of charity work. They both build schools, run hospitals, and the whole 9 yards.
However, they also do terrorism.
(And, as I've said in every post I've made on this thread: I don't personally care about Ellison one way or the other. That's Minnesota's problem, not mine)
It really highlights the lack of 'separation of church and state', doesn't it? And, what about Muslims being elected to office? Especially after the stuff I found earlier this year on their beliefs regarding 'white man', it's rather unsettling.
Belle,
Would you prefer to have it mandated by law that all public officials must swear upon the Bible when taking an oath of office? Do you think that Muslims should be barred from serving in public office?
Second, I think that, rather than being a statement of his faith, it is him trying to "make a statement." Best cure for him "making a statement" is to ignore it.
Mark,
Do you have any evidence that the Congressman uses his minority status whether racial or religious to be flashy or controversial? Even though we often find ourselves taking opposite positions on many issues, I have admired your dedication to documentation as well as your presentation. This statement, however, has the ring of presumption.
Oen, maybe read the whole thread before taking that tone with me. :P
In Post #6 I said:
I agree with all of you. :)
WW, I think that the Bible has lost its value as a representation of what we were raised to respect. It's just a symbol now and so many so-called "Christian" politicians are anything BUT good examples of Christians, much less decent, law abiding citizens that it's rather silly to even have that as part of the ceremony anymore. Especially since, as Bramble pointed out, there are elected officials who aren't even Christians.
The whole swearing in requiring swearing on anything is rather vacuous and laughable, really. Maybe they should just stand there and recite the age old, "cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye."
I feel that way even more since I've now learned that that whole part of the swearing in process is merely a photo op and for show.
And, then, upon further informative posts regarding "the nation of islam" vs. traditional "Islam" (in this thread and the one titled Yakub) and this man's comments, I followed up on my view of the Islam issue (post #38):
Well, we should be the last folks to condemn him for being involved with a wacky religious group at one time, shouldn't we? :)
I would be concerned, yes, if someone of Farrakhan's ilk were to be elected into office regardless of their religion (or lack thereof), but that's not the case here and I'm thankful for those here who took the time to give me the information to see that my perceptions were incorrect.
I believe you have grossly mis-read or mis-understood Mark's comments. He has not slammed the man at all, nor has he criticized his actions. As for Mark's other posts, he has provided documentation for what he has posted, but you'll have to read the thread to find it.
Do you have any evidence that the Congressman uses his minority status whether racial or religious to be flashy or controversial? Even though we often find ourselves taking opposite positions on many issues, I have admired your dedication to documentation as well as your presentation. This statement, however, has the ring of presumption.
Actually, it is related to the other statement I made in post #4:
First, I personally couldn't care less whether Ellison is sworn in with his hand on the Bible, the Qu'ran, or on a roll of toilet paper. Whatever. For the vast majority elected officials, the "oath of office" is meaningless, anyway.
I have seen enough Congressmen do enough just for the show of it...the "photo-op," as it were. When I was in the service, I had to play the role of the adoring servicemember enough times to have personal experience with it.
Think about it: the swearing in ceremony with the book (Bible, Quran, Cosmopolitan, whatever) is nothing but a photo-op anyway...they were sworn in long before that.
The job of electing the speaker. Big show on Thursday...but it was already officially decided long before.
Photo-ops are just that.
My sense is that he was making a statement. The result of this statement is that the right wing fell for it: and appear to be a bunch of intolerant idiots. Had they just not made a big deal about it, it would have never made the news (including the bit about Jefferson's Quran) outside of Minnesota and outside of the Arab News (or some other such site) and that would have been that.
The right wing needs to pick its battles. This is not one that should have been picked.
I am sorry that you read into my questions some disagreeable tone. Let me be open and clear that I like you even though we have never met and I enjoy your posts because your smarts and heart almost always shine through. It would be a significant personal loss if you chose to exit my shrinking circle of GSC friends.
My intent in asking the questions is given the fact that we demand freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof for ourselves, why do we blink an eye in 2007 about extending that freedom to people of other faiths? Unfortunately, your observation later in the thread (which I did read before posting) about how most people who take oath on the Bible are not really Christians doesn't address that fundamental issue.
The purpose of taking a oath is to be bound to perform the oath. In our western culture oaths have traditionally been taken upon the Bible because it is presumed that the oathtaker will bound by his faith in the Bible as his/her ultimate truth. I do believe that you are probably correct that there are those who swear upon the Bible who do not believe it to be true but for purposes of political expediency do so anyway. It is for that reason that we should celebrate this Congressman's taking an oath on a text that he felt morally bound.
Regarding Mark's other posts, I think that I made it clear that Mark does take pains to carefully document his points.
The result of this statement is that the right wing fell for it: and appear to be a bunch of intolerant idiots.
That's because they ARE a bunch of intolerant idiots. ... Otherwise they wouldn't have reacted like they did, especially since they reacted spontaneously, ie., honestly. ... Gives a new meaning to the phrase 'Truth in Advertising', ... knowwhatImean.
Ah, that makes more sense. :) And, for the record, Oen, I think the world of you and though we may find some things we disagree on, it doesn't change that. Ask, WD. We've managed to find common ground and respect for one another despite his incredibly wrong view of Harry Potter and plagiarism. (His views are wrong, because mine certainly aren't. )
I think politicians shouldn't swear an oath on anything, especially since it's just for show. Furthermore, there shouldn't be any need for it if honest folks are elected to office.
Regarding freedom of religion - there's a difference between supporting one's right to worship & believe as they wish and allowing those people to make decisions that affect our lives.
The Nation of Islam is welcome to believe that white people, especially those with blue eyes, are devils. However, if a bunch of people who believe those things were to be elected to office, it would greatly disturb my sense of security.
I think politicians shouldn't swear an oath on anything, especially since it's just for show. Furthermore, there shouldn't be any need for it if honest folks are elected to office.
Ya know Belle, I think MarkO came up with a dandy idea on what Congressweenies (I *love* that term. Think I'll use it :P ) can make their pledges on.
Regarding freedom of religion - there's a difference between supporting one's right to worship & believe as they wish and allowing those people to make decisions that affect our lives.
The Nation of Islam is welcome to believe that white people, especially those with blue eyes, are devils. However, if a bunch of people who believe those things were to be elected to office, it would greatly disturb my sense of security.
Regarding the Constitution, as has been cited in this thread before, but apparently needs repeating for some:
The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
This is not about freedom to worship, it is the law of the land, and what ALL congresspeople (and the president) supposedly swear or affirm to support and defend. "No religious test SHALL EVER be required...." I believe for a congressperson to project that muslims should not be allowed to hold office is in itself a violation of their own oath. It speaks volumns about their integrity.
The Constituion itself does not describe a specifically worded oath for any office other than that of the president, nor does it require the traditional addition of "so help me God"
Ellison is not the first, a number of presidents and congressional electees have forsaken the bible for their oath. Some have simply "affirmed" (Quakers, as an example), one placed his hand on a law book, and some have used various jewish books. This is not new, but not much of a scene was made of it until this current spat.
For a fun aside concerning historical disagreements on the congressional oath: In 1862, Congress adopted an internal rule which made it necessary for "every person elected or appointed to any office ... under the Government of the United States ... excepting the President of the United States" to swear or affirm that they had never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct"
Following the Civil War, in 1868, members from the southern states were specifically not required to ascribe to this "Test Oath". This really angered some northern legislators who objected to the idea that southerns could be criminal and disloyal, but northerners could not!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
4
7
4
5
Popular Days
Jan 4
22
Jan 5
13
Jan 7
9
Jan 8
8
Top Posters In This Topic
HAPe4me 4 posts
Belle 7 posts
mstar1 4 posts
markomalley 5 posts
Popular Days
Jan 4 2007
22 posts
Jan 5 2007
13 posts
Jan 7 2007
9 posts
Jan 8 2007
8 posts
markomalley
I think, though, that a lot of the hooplah regarding Ellison come from a rather checkered past that he has had.
Let me repeat that I don't care whether a congressweenie swears on a Bible, a Quran, or a used kleenex.
Let me also repeat that I think that this is a publicity stunt.
Having said that:
Source: CBS
Source: Minnesota Public Radio
Now Ellison has said that he has renounced his association with Farrakhan. So maybe it is in his past.
Ellison has also been closely linked with CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations). CAIR has been, in turn, linked to the terrorist group Hamas.
So perhaps some of the concerns regarding Ellison are not purely religious bigotry, but are concerns based on disturbing aspects from his past.
Again, just trying to bring in these additional data points...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
By who?
Ive heard that, but havent seen anything substantial beyond allegations and conjecture on that one.
The CAIR WEBSITE is quick to denounce any any all acts of terrorism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
Ok, so, I'll add what I found.
Ellison, a criminal defense attorney who converted to Islam as a college student, denounced Farrakhan, and he won the endorsement of a Minneapolis Jewish newspaper.
A statement released by Steve Hunegs, executive director-designate of the Jewish Community Relations Council, expressed optimism about the election results.
"The election of Keith Ellison as the first Muslim in Congress is a ground-breaking event in American politics. It also presents a significant opportunity for Minnesota's Jewish community," said Hunegs. "Our community has an historic tradition of working with other faith, ethnic and racial groups to achieve goals important to all Minnesotans: religious pluralism, protection of civil rights, eradication of hate crimes and social justice advocacy."
Hunegs added the JCRC looks forward to working with Ellison to work toward finding peace in the Middle East.
http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_310080755.html
Belle, to say that people of Islam hate white people because of the Nation of Islam, is like saying Christians hate black people because of the Church of Jesus Christ-Christian. Like Abigail said, they're both small parts of a larger whole.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Considering that those things about Ellison's past ties with the Nation of Islam, etc., are not WIDELY known (outside of MN), but the bigotry being aimed at Ellison reaches far beyond MN, I'd have to say I doubt it. Religious bigotry doesn't wait -- until people have done in-depth research -- before rearing its ugly head.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Fair question.
But before I continue, let me state again, I don't care personally one way or the other. i'm just trying to provide some additional information on some of the background that might explain the furor over his use of a Quran for his swearing-in photo op:
Nihad Awad, executive director of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, flew to Minneapolis for an Aug. 25 fundraiser for Ellison
- Washington Post, 9/11/06
More than 1,000 people turned out on Saturday at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) banquet in Arlington, Va., to hear addresses by several elected officials, including Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in Congress.
- CAIR Press Release, 11/20/2006
I think the above two establish somewhat of a connection between Ellison and CAIR. There's other references, but that shows the point.
As far as CAIR's ties to terrorism, apparently Barbara Boxer has some concerns:
In a highly unusual move, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California has rescinded an award to an Islamic activist in her home state because of the man’s connections to a major American Muslim organization that recently has been courted by leading political figures and even the FBI.
Boxer’s office confirmed to NEWSWEEK that she has withdrawn a “certificate of accomplishment” to Sacramento activist Basim Elkarra after learning that he serves as an official with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). After directing her staff to look into CAIR, Boxer “expressed concern” about some past statements and actions by the group, as well as assertions by some law enforcement officials that it “gives aid to international terrorist groups,” according to Natalie Ravitz, the senator’s press spokeswoman.
- Newsweek, Dec 29, 2006
Charles Schumer also has some concerns about CAIR:
Yet, Ellison is causing fresh concerns for some voters. He recently went to Florida to raise campaign funds at a party hosted by an official of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group accused by U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and others of alliances with terrorists. The council is running a TV commercial in Minnesota vigorously denying such ties.
- St. Paul Pioneer Press, 10/31/2006
Finally, you could take a look for yourself:
Take a look at this web archive of CAIR's website on 9/17/2001
On the right hand panel of that page, about 2/3 of the way down, there is a section called "Help for Victims"
Notice the second option they give: "Donate to the NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund"
If you move your mouse over that link (don't click it), you will see that it points to the following URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20010917013636/...mp;function=add
You will see within that link the text "www.hlf.org" -- that was the URL for a group called the "Holy Land Foundation."
According to Wikipedia (multiple citations therein), both the US government and the European Union have linked it to Hamas and had it shut down as a terrorist organization.
So, if Boxer and Schumer (neither of whom are friendly with Bush) are concerned about being linked with CAIR, I'd say there just might be something there...
But, again, that's Minnesota's problem. I haven't lived in Minnesota for over 25 years and so it isn't mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Mark you definitely always do your homework but this is a little too conspiratorial for me-- I read all your links but I dont have an eye or mind inclined toward "genuine spiritual suspicion" nor do I have an inside track to what Boxer and Schumer obscure concerns maybe. They have yet to make any public statements that I know of, release any valid information or have anything other than unsubstantiated suspicions at this point
FromHLF Website
....is a non-profit organization with focus on
national and international programs aimed at
.... finding
practical solutions for human suffering everywhere.
From Wikipedia
"They have provided support to victims after disasters and wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Turkey, and in the United States (Iowa floods, Texas tornadoes, and the Oklahoma City bombing)."
Also from Wikipedia
"Treasury officials conceded that a "substantial amount" of the money raised goes to worthy causes"
and, like many things since the initial hysteria after 9/11
"no accused charity or any senior officer has been convicted on a charge of terrorism and some charities still face no criminal charges."
They apparently, according to the Wikipedia article, got shut down and their assets frozen for funding schools in Palestine (schools?--).
I could be wrong but they sound like a thousand and one other non profit charities except that they happen to be of the wrong religion than is acceptable right now, as is CAIR, who is trying to improve their lot and overcome this period of inquisitions.
But thats just me.
Personally I got to hold a Gutenberg Bible in my hands last year and it is something that I'll always remember .
I doubt that its a publicity stunt at all, given the opportunity and the reason I would love to hold any of Jeffersons books in my hands, Im not even a Muslim but I would feel honored to hold his Quran (or any of his books). I would think it would be especially gratifying and meaningful for the first Muslim elected to the house to hold the Quran of the man who wrote so eloquently about freedom of religion as part of our national foundation as he watched it lived out....but again thats just me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I've already stated what I think so I won't repeat myself on that. Jefferson was dang kewl in my book and I'd be honored to hold any book of his. Knowing it's all ceremonial makes it laughable no matter who is getting sworn in on what.
What concerns me now is if that guy believes this and if that becomes a majority of the elected government officials.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I figure if he believes that then he was too uneducated to be elected and if he did manage to get elected believing that, his political career will be short.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
good answer Abi
I for one, am appalled.
..
...
.... that in this day and time this is an issue. Sad really. oh the hatred. bah humbug, disgusting.
HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
if only he could be sworn in using a PFAL book....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Quoted from HERE
Not being from DMiller's neck of the woods, I don't know much about this new Congressman. But it sounds like people who've had a chance to scrutinize him enough to endorse him believe he's telling the truth about this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Well, we should be the last folks to condemn him for being involved with a wacky religious group at one time, shouldn't we? :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Hahahahahahaha, Belle. That's for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
One thing to keep in mind is that the Nation of Islam (Farrakhan's group) has nothing to do with actual Islam. They call themselves Muslims, but they're about as real Muslim as Mormons are Christian. Also it is true that the NoI promote some racist beliefs against white "devils." Of course, not everyone who is a member of the NoI are racist or bad, it's just like us when we were in TWI I suppose.
Also, to address dmiller's post, the U.S. has never been a "melting pot" and has always treated immigrants like dirt. The Know-Nothings were a sort of anti-Irish Minutemen type group that were more successful in their reign of terror than the Minutemen are. They had office-holding politicians and police working with them to help murder and cover up the murders of immigrants. If you look at our history, immigrants were always demonized and hated. The Irish and Italians were said to be an invading army to take over the U.S. for the Pope, similar to how the white supremacists invented the "reconquistadora" story about Mexican immigrants. The Polish and Germans were also mistreated and hated. Why do you think there are so many jokes about Polish people? The Germans had it even worse, considering the wars that they were involved with. Also don't forget how blacks were enslaved and brought here and are still not treated equally, or the genocide committed against the native americans many times throughout our history.
So no, we're not a melting pot, and we're just barely not as bad as we used to be. The way it works out is that as a new group of immigrant comes, the old ones get accepted as being "white" and everybody gangs up on the newer groups. The Irish used to be called n****rs turned inside out, and now they're considered as white as anyone of British descent.
As to the main topic of this, I don't really care what the guy swears on in his private ceremony. As others have pointed out, in the official swearing in he uses nothing. It's just that he has a private ceremony to satisfy his own religious beliefs or his own ego. As long as he does a good job and represents the people of his community well, that's what matters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
MStar,
And there are many people who believe Hamas and Hezbollah are charitable organizations as well (seriously). And both organizations also do a significant amount of charity work. They both build schools, run hospitals, and the whole 9 yards.
However, they also do terrorism.
(And, as I've said in every post I've made on this thread: I don't personally care about Ellison one way or the other. That's Minnesota's problem, not mine)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Belle,
Would you prefer to have it mandated by law that all public officials must swear upon the Bible when taking an oath of office? Do you think that Muslims should be barred from serving in public office?
Second, I think that, rather than being a statement of his faith, it is him trying to "make a statement." Best cure for him "making a statement" is to ignore it.Mark,
Do you have any evidence that the Congressman uses his minority status whether racial or religious to be flashy or controversial? Even though we often find ourselves taking opposite positions on many issues, I have admired your dedication to documentation as well as your presentation. This statement, however, has the ring of presumption.
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Oen, maybe read the whole thread before taking that tone with me.
:P
In Post #6 I said:
I feel that way even more since I've now learned that that whole part of the swearing in process is merely a photo op and for show.
And, then, upon further informative posts regarding "the nation of islam" vs. traditional "Islam" (in this thread and the one titled Yakub) and this man's comments, I followed up on my view of the Islam issue (post #38):
I would be concerned, yes, if someone of Farrakhan's ilk were to be elected into office regardless of their religion (or lack thereof), but that's not the case here and I'm thankful for those here who took the time to give me the information to see that my perceptions were incorrect.
I believe you have grossly mis-read or mis-understood Mark's comments. He has not slammed the man at all, nor has he criticized his actions. As for Mark's other posts, he has provided documentation for what he has posted, but you'll have to read the thread to find it.
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Actually, it is related to the other statement I made in post #4:
I have seen enough Congressmen do enough just for the show of it...the "photo-op," as it were. When I was in the service, I had to play the role of the adoring servicemember enough times to have personal experience with it.
Think about it: the swearing in ceremony with the book (Bible, Quran, Cosmopolitan, whatever) is nothing but a photo-op anyway...they were sworn in long before that.
The job of electing the speaker. Big show on Thursday...but it was already officially decided long before.
Photo-ops are just that.
My sense is that he was making a statement. The result of this statement is that the right wing fell for it: and appear to be a bunch of intolerant idiots. Had they just not made a big deal about it, it would have never made the news (including the bit about Jefferson's Quran) outside of Minnesota and outside of the Arab News (or some other such site) and that would have been that.
The right wing needs to pick its battles. This is not one that should have been picked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Belle,
I am sorry that you read into my questions some disagreeable tone. Let me be open and clear that I like you even though we have never met and I enjoy your posts because your smarts and heart almost always shine through. It would be a significant personal loss if you chose to exit my shrinking circle of GSC friends.
My intent in asking the questions is given the fact that we demand freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof for ourselves, why do we blink an eye in 2007 about extending that freedom to people of other faiths? Unfortunately, your observation later in the thread (which I did read before posting) about how most people who take oath on the Bible are not really Christians doesn't address that fundamental issue.
The purpose of taking a oath is to be bound to perform the oath. In our western culture oaths have traditionally been taken upon the Bible because it is presumed that the oathtaker will bound by his faith in the Bible as his/her ultimate truth. I do believe that you are probably correct that there are those who swear upon the Bible who do not believe it to be true but for purposes of political expediency do so anyway. It is for that reason that we should celebrate this Congressman's taking an oath on a text that he felt morally bound.
Regarding Mark's other posts, I think that I made it clear that Mark does take pains to carefully document his points.
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
That's because they ARE a bunch of intolerant idiots. ... Otherwise they wouldn't have reacted like they did, especially since they reacted spontaneously, ie., honestly. ... Gives a new meaning to the phrase 'Truth in Advertising', ... knowwhatImean.
They got nobody to blame but themselves.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Ah, that makes more sense. :) And, for the record, Oen, I think the world of you and though we may find some things we disagree on, it doesn't change that. Ask, WD. We've managed to find common ground and respect for one another despite his incredibly wrong view of Harry Potter and plagiarism.
(His views are wrong, because mine certainly aren't. 
)
I think politicians shouldn't swear an oath on anything, especially since it's just for show. Furthermore, there shouldn't be any need for it if honest folks are elected to office.
Regarding freedom of religion - there's a difference between supporting one's right to worship & believe as they wish and allowing those people to make decisions that affect our lives.
The Nation of Islam is welcome to believe that white people, especially those with blue eyes, are devils. However, if a bunch of people who believe those things were to be elected to office, it would greatly disturb my sense of security.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ya know Belle, I think MarkO came up with a dandy idea on what Congressweenies (I *love* that term. Think I'll use it :P ) can make their pledges on.
Toilet paper! ..... How appropos! :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Regarding the Constitution, as has been cited in this thread before, but apparently needs repeating for some:
The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
This is not about freedom to worship, it is the law of the land, and what ALL congresspeople (and the president) supposedly swear or affirm to support and defend. "No religious test SHALL EVER be required...." I believe for a congressperson to project that muslims should not be allowed to hold office is in itself a violation of their own oath. It speaks volumns about their integrity.
The Constituion itself does not describe a specifically worded oath for any office other than that of the president, nor does it require the traditional addition of "so help me God"
Ellison is not the first, a number of presidents and congressional electees have forsaken the bible for their oath. Some have simply "affirmed" (Quakers, as an example), one placed his hand on a law book, and some have used various jewish books. This is not new, but not much of a scene was made of it until this current spat.
For a fun aside concerning historical disagreements on the congressional oath: In 1862, Congress adopted an internal rule which made it necessary for "every person elected or appointed to any office ... under the Government of the United States ... excepting the President of the United States" to swear or affirm that they had never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct"
Following the Civil War, in 1868, members from the southern states were specifically not required to ascribe to this "Test Oath". This really angered some northern legislators who objected to the idea that southerns could be criminal and disloyal, but northerners could not!
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Well, Hap, I reckon you'll just have to pigeonhole me as a hypocritical bigot. -_-
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.