I am delighted to see a Muslim elected to congress and that he chose to be sworn in using the Quran. I think that diversity in elected positions provides for a truer representation of our diverse society and the fact that he wanted to take the oath using the book of his own religion is indicative that he takes his oath seriously...
There were people who got upset when women, blacks, hispanic, oriental and gay people entered politics through the election process...I am not surprised that there are people who are upset over a Muslim congressman...especially in light of the massive anti-Muslim propaganda that has engulfed our nation via the government's so called "war on terror"...
Governmental power has been monopolized by "rich white guys" long enough...I say we should open the doors of opprotunity to ALL Americans.
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. )
Well, Hap, I reckon you'll just have to pigeonhole me as a hypocritical bigot. -_-
No Belle, don't pin that on me.
It's not my intent to do any such thing, where one files themself is totally up to them. We must each weigh our own heart and determine what shall emanate from our being. Such is life.
Being part of the whole does not negate individuality, both can coexist. Functioning as part of the greater culture does not require sacrificing our uniqueness.
I think the issue here is not so much that he was seeking a photo op, or that he was using the Koran rather than the bible, but that he is part of a religious minority that is the majority religion of people that we are fighting against and whom commit terrorist acts. Do you think that this would be an issue if he was part of a peaceful Buddhist sect?
first, welcome Sioux. haven't seen you here before, I hope you enjoy your stay. What is it you are stunned about? His use of the Koran in a photoop or a muslim elected to congress, something else? Perhaps it is the reaction of some here that stuns you. It does me!
ummm Coolchef-
While a new, Muslim member of Congress sparked a controversy for taking his oath of office with a Quran instead of a Bible on Thursday, another new member who is Buddhist was sworn in with no book at all.
Rep. Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat who was raised in the Buddhist tradition, said, "I don't have a book. ... But I certainly believe in the precepts of Buddhism" Elsewhere she said, "there is no book in Buddhism that’s equivalent to the Bible or the Koran"
There are actually 2 Buddhists in congress this session. So, seeing that little has been mentioned of the Buddhists, (you apparently didn't know about them) why is such a bruhaha being made of Rep. Ellison, a muslim? Since the official swearing in is done enmasse, without a religious book, I don't get the consternation against Rep. Ellison. apparently neither do various other religious leaders. They are backing a petition against Rep. (notso) Goode who was chiefly responsible for raising this issue.
Religious leaders and organizations backing the petition include Dr. George Hunsinger of the Princeton Theological Seminary, Rev. Robert Edgar of the National Council of Churches, Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs of the Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs Progressive Faith Foundation, Rev. Dr. Larry L. Greenfield of the American Baptist Churches of Metro Chicago, Rev. Cedric A. Harmon of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Joseph C. Hough, Jr. of the Union Theological Seminary, Vincent Isner of Faithful America, a program of the National Council of the Churches of Christ USA, and Rev. Timothy F. Simpson of the Christian Alliance for Progress
You can read the petition, and presumably sign it here:
it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute. That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli—and another paid to himself—would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And, even if I am wrong, we can be sure that the dispatch of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to the Barbary shore was the first and most important act of his presidency. It took several years of bombardment before the practice of kidnap and piracy and slavery was put down, but put down it was, Quranic justification or not.
There is a lot more if you are interested, I won't bother to try to expound .. but it is a good read ... Jefferson went to war against those sharia guys, instead of paying tribute to their god ... my vague interpretation
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
GrouchoMarxJr
I am delighted to see a Muslim elected to congress and that he chose to be sworn in using the Quran. I think that diversity in elected positions provides for a truer representation of our diverse society and the fact that he wanted to take the oath using the book of his own religion is indicative that he takes his oath seriously...
There were people who got upset when women, blacks, hispanic, oriental and gay people entered politics through the election process...I am not surprised that there are people who are upset over a Muslim congressman...especially in light of the massive anti-Muslim propaganda that has engulfed our nation via the government's so called "war on terror"...
Governmental power has been monopolized by "rich white guys" long enough...I say we should open the doors of opprotunity to ALL Americans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
:wub:
But your still not gettin the Big Teddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
No Belle, don't pin that on me.
It's not my intent to do any such thing, where one files themself is totally up to them. We must each weigh our own heart and determine what shall emanate from our being. Such is life.
Peaceout,
HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Siouxzahn
I hadn't heard about this...I'm pretty stunned to hear it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Sioux -- this is happening in my home state of Minney-soda.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
dmiller:
Being part of the whole does not negate individuality, both can coexist. Functioning as part of the greater culture does not require sacrificing our uniqueness.
I think the issue here is not so much that he was seeking a photo op, or that he was using the Koran rather than the bible, but that he is part of a religious minority that is the majority religion of people that we are fighting against and whom commit terrorist acts. Do you think that this would be an issue if he was part of a peaceful Buddhist sect?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
oakspear
i do!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
first, welcome Sioux. haven't seen you here before, I hope you enjoy your stay. What is it you are stunned about? His use of the Koran in a photoop or a muslim elected to congress, something else? Perhaps it is the reaction of some here that stuns you. It does me!
ummm Coolchef-
While a new, Muslim member of Congress sparked a controversy for taking his oath of office with a Quran instead of a Bible on Thursday, another new member who is Buddhist was sworn in with no book at all.
Rep. Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat who was raised in the Buddhist tradition, said, "I don't have a book. ... But I certainly believe in the precepts of Buddhism" Elsewhere she said, "there is no book in Buddhism that’s equivalent to the Bible or the Koran"
There are actually 2 Buddhists in congress this session. So, seeing that little has been mentioned of the Buddhists, (you apparently didn't know about them) why is such a bruhaha being made of Rep. Ellison, a muslim? Since the official swearing in is done enmasse, without a religious book, I don't get the consternation against Rep. Ellison. apparently neither do various other religious leaders. They are backing a petition against Rep. (notso) Goode who was chiefly responsible for raising this issue.
Religious leaders and organizations backing the petition include Dr. George Hunsinger of the Princeton Theological Seminary, Rev. Robert Edgar of the National Council of Churches, Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs of the Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs Progressive Faith Foundation, Rev. Dr. Larry L. Greenfield of the American Baptist Churches of Metro Chicago, Rev. Cedric A. Harmon of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Joseph C. Hough, Jr. of the Union Theological Seminary, Vincent Isner of Faithful America, a program of the National Council of the Churches of Christ USA, and Rev. Timothy F. Simpson of the Christian Alliance for Progress
You can read the petition, and presumably sign it here:
http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/2007/01...ep-vigil-goode/
should you be so inclined, teehee
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
This seems like a good piece on Jefferson's attitude about Islam and sharia type rule.
it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute. That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli—and another paid to himself—would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And, even if I am wrong, we can be sure that the dispatch of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to the Barbary shore was the first and most important act of his presidency. It took several years of bombardment before the practice of kidnap and piracy and slavery was put down, but put down it was, Quranic justification or not.
There is a lot more if you are interested, I won't bother to try to expound .. but it is a good read ... Jefferson went to war against those sharia guys, instead of paying tribute to their god ... my vague interpretation
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.