Rep. Ellison takes oath on Jefferson's Quran--MORE
"Gleaned Wisdom"
By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 2007
Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.
The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.
Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.
There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.
Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.
The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.
Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow. Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.
Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.
Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain. The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease. During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged 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 Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.
The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.
In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.
During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.
Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea." It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.
Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.
By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 2007
Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.
The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.
Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.
There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.
Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.
The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.
Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow. Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.
Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.
Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain. The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease. During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged 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 Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.
The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.
In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.
During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.
Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea." It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.
Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.
0
-
Seems to me we should have learned a lesson on Muslims back then. Even
after 9-11 we still havent learned a lesson. How stupid can we be. In their own stupid religion only Muslims count. No other religion should
exist and should be wiped out completely. Do we need this kind of people here?0 -
Book of Jihad? from the very beginning you can tell its biased. You can find passages in the bible telling to kill every many woman and child too.
As to the treaty of tripoli.
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
You can further tell the bias by how powerful and "withering" american action in tripoli was, when we still paid them tribute even afterwards.
It was more even than portrayed, ending with a peace agreement and 1 time lump sum payment of tribute to them instead of annually:
"Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party."0 -
quote:Originally posted by CA sucks
Book of Jihad? from the very beginning you can tell its biased. You can find passages in the bible telling to kill every many woman and child too.
As to the treaty of tripoli.
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
You can further tell the bias by how powerful and "withering" american action in tripoli was, when we still paid them tribute even afterwards.
It was more even than portrayed, ending with a peace agreement and 1 time lump sum payment of tribute to them instead of annually:
"Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party."
No, not a Christian nation but not a nation of Islam either. It wouldn't matter if we were a country of any religion so long as it's not Islam they want us dead. It is ridiculous to allow anybody who poses such a threat to this or any nation to continue existing. They have for centuries lived in their countries unbothered by us and all they have ever wanted is our destruction. If they could live and let live it would be a different story all together but they refuse to do so. I say let the tree of liberty be refreshed with the blood of these tyrants. What say you?0 -
Is this new Congressman black? I ask because Islam doesn't attract too many white converts in America but it does seem to draw quite a few black Americans.
What bothers me is that it seems to me that most of the time these African-Americans who convert to Islam do so out of a desire to reject American values rather than a desire to embrace something positive. Many of these Islamic converts profess a distrust of America and white Americans in particular. All you need do is listen to the rhetoric expressed by some high-profile members of the American Islamic movement to see what I mean. Often they describe white people in very derogatory and insulting terms and sometimes advocate violence against whites.
I don't know if this new member of Congress shares these views but I have to be somewhat suspicious since he seems determined to reject traditional American values and flaunts his disdain publicly. If his purpose isn't to infuriate then what is it?
At the very least I think we can count on him being as far to the political left as is possible to be without actually being a member of Castro's administration. There seems to be no shortage of leftists from MN and WI. What's going on up there, anyway?0 -
"it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen;"
-"the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation," <- this is no longer true
There is also the part of our constitution that says no religous test will be required for taking office.
"Are you Muslim?"
-"No"
"you may take your office"
Amounts to a religous test.
People said when JFK took office we'd all be under the control of a guy in a pointy white hat.
Depending on the passages you read in the qu'ran, it can seem uber-violent, or peacfull. Not all muslims are out to kill us.
If that were true, we would truly have no chance in iraq, and might as well just bomb/shoot every body in iraq as they are nearly all muslim.
Judge him by his actions, not the name of his faith.
So far I haven't heard anything besides "OMG his a mus-loon, hes a terrorist, america will be destroyed, the taliban is taking over our govt, omg if we allow this america will be destroyed, hes a muslim, this other guy centuries ago was a muslim and they were pirating our ships"
Of course no parellels can be drawn between the muslims in the barbary states in 1801 and the spanish christians during the inquisition.
I mean because some muslims were bad centuries ago, all muslims are bad, but because some christians were bad centuries ago, well they are all fine and rosy now.
Get over it, I hold him innocent till proven guilty, which you have not done0 -
I can't think of any MORE American than a Muslim taking office, using a Koran.
This IS America, RIGHT? HOME OF THE FREE????????????
Well..........I guess you can be "free" AS LONG AS YOU DON'T MAKE ANY WAVES!!!!!!!!
I've never seen more hypocrites anywhere as I have here.......sheesh.
Get over yourselves already.
Merc0 -
Merc, I've never seen more people sling around the word "hypocrite" anywhere as I have here.......sheesh.
Most of the people slinging the word around don't even know what "hypocrite" means. Do you know what a hypocrite is? Most people who call other people hypocrites are hypocrites showing their wishful thinking.0 -
Funny how the posting of someone's account of history can get so many pairs of panties in collective wads.
"sheeeesh"...indeed. If one wishes to be blind to the realities of islam, go right ahead. If one wishes to cuddle with rattlesnakes, go right ahead. If one wishes to wrap oneself in the Bill of Rights and Old Glory while singing the praises of allah, muhammed, and bin laden, go right ahead. After all, this IS America, ain't it?
I heartily wish and pray supreme blessings upon all who think the problem with America is the Christian presence within it. Same for those who are too totally ignorant to know reality from the drivel they get from CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, the ACLU and the NCAA. Let's even toss out a special prop for all who fight tooth and nail to defend those who would bury them. Whatever blows up your skirt, sister.
If one is really so stupid as to find no difference in "Christians" acting totally without any justification or inspiration from their "holy book" and muslims who only do or say VIOLENCE that is found word-for-word in their "holy book," then that one is not going to ever be enlightened by postings on this forum. One can't make a brick think.0 -
Oath of Office
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
would'nt the last line in the oath make his swearing in illegal?0 -
What moral minority would that be? Christians? Sorry, but about 70-80% of Americans ID themselves as Christian so hardly in the minority. Does that mean Christians should own the country and dictate terms to all others? Of course not. But I am tired of hearing complaints about how Christians dominate the country. Find a country not dominated by the most popular religion. Those defending Muslims against unfair criticism by Christians should try going to a Muslim country and expressing an alternative point of view and see what happens. At least here you won't get your head cut off.
As for believing what you see fit, absolutely. Anything wrong, in principle, with being Muslim? No. BUT, it's not unreasonable to be a tad concerned about a man who has converted to a religion that seems to be at odds with not only "mainstream" American religion but also with American values, history and tradition not to mention policy.
If this man were born a Muslim I wouldn't give the situation a second thought. But he converted. Why? If we weren't sort of at war right now with Muslims (not all of them to be sure but our enemies are Muslim) I wouldn't give the situation a second thought. But we are at war with radical Islam and the voters in WI have elected a Muslim to Congress.
I wonder how much chance a candidate named Hans Schmitt would have had in 1942 running for Congress? Times have changed. Goes to underscore my contention that we can't win any war because we fail to recognize the dangers, let the PC crowd take control, and generally lack the will to do what's necessary to win. Our enemies, on the other hand, are far more focused, determined, and are clearly willing to do whatever it takes to win.
I bet Bill Smith, Methodist, won't be elected to any office in a Muslim country and trying to take an oath on a Bible in a Muslim nation might get you beheaded. So who's the bad guy, here? Nobody is stopping this Muslim convert from taking office but I think it's perfectly reasonable to at least raise an eyebrow and ask questions given the current situation.0 -
Saxon-Very well said.
However, you mentioned Wisconsin elected this guy. It ws Minnesota. (Remember the state that also elected Jesse Ventura governor) We only elect top-notch congressmen and senators in WI, like Feingold and Kohl......ooops, never mind [xx(] [:p] [:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
What moral minority would that be? Christians? Sorry, but about 70-80% of Americans ID themselves as Christian so hardly in the minority. Does that mean Christians should own the country and dictate terms to all others? Of course not. But I am tired of hearing complaints about how Christians dominate the country. Find a country not dominated by the most popular religion. Those defending Muslims against unfair criticism by Christians should try going to a Muslim country and expressing an alternative point of view and see what happens. At least here you won't get your head cut off.
As for believing what you see fit, absolutely. Anything wrong, in principle, with being Muslim? No. BUT, it's not unreasonable to be a tad concerned about a man who has converted to a religion that seems to be at odds with not only "mainstream" American religion but also with American values, history and tradition not to mention policy.
If this man were born a Muslim I wouldn't give the situation a second thought. But he converted. Why? If we weren't sort of at war right now with Muslims (not all of them to be sure but our enemies are Muslim) I wouldn't give the situation a second thought. But we are at war with radical Islam and the voters in WI have elected a Muslim to Congress.
I wonder how much chance a candidate named Hans Schmitt would have had in 1942 running for Congress? Times have changed. Goes to underscore my contention that we can't win any war because we fail to recognize the dangers, let the PC crowd take control, and generally lack the will to do what's necessary to win. Our enemies, on the other hand, are far more focused, determined, and are clearly willing to do whatever it takes to win.
I bet Bill Smith, Methodist, won't be elected to any office in a Muslim country and trying to take an oath on a Bible in a Muslim nation might get you beheaded. So who's the bad guy, here? Nobody is stopping this Muslim convert from taking office but I think it's perfectly reasonable to at least raise an eyebrow and ask questions given the current situation.
There's some wisdom in this post...0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
Is this new Congressman black? I ask because Islam doesn't attract too many white converts in America but it does seem to draw quite a few black Americans.
What bothers me is that it seems to me that most of the time these African-Americans who convert to Islam do so out of a desire to reject American values rather than a desire to embrace something positive. Many of these Islamic converts profess a distrust of America and white Americans in particular. All you need do is listen to the rhetoric expressed by some high-profile members of the American Islamic movement to see what I mean. Often they describe white people in very derogatory and insulting terms and sometimes advocate violence against whites.
I don't know if this new member of Congress shares these views but I have to be somewhat suspicious since he seems determined to reject traditional American values and flaunts his disdain publicly. If his purpose isn't to infuriate then what is it?
VERY TRUE !!!!0 -
Has anyone else noticed that so often the "Christian haters" are nothing more (or less) than haters of their God. (see Romans 1) The antiChrist spirit is and has been alive in this world since shortly after the beginning of time. It was present and active before and after the birth of Jesus; it raged during His earthly life; it thought it had won at His death; it only slightly recoiled at His resurrection. It rose to religious and temporal note with the demonic fits of muhammed, and so it continues to seethe even in non-muslims (as evidenced here on this forum) to this day. Only with the triumphal return of Jesus will this dark force (impotent though it is) be put to an end. Meanwhile, we must endure the sulphur-scented wailing of the puppies of hell barking against their own demise. Alas...[:(][V] 0 -
so what is the term for Christian haters ? There is a term for jew haters (anti-semite) but none for Christian haters. Actually, I think they are called "liberals" or "atheists" 0 -
I just love the way ppl jump to conclusions..
Atheists and agnostics dont usually hate anyone ...they (we) just dont believe in a non-exist god, or at the very least we ask for proof of it..ITs rather hard to hate someone you have never met...0 -
I'm just curious, since you all seem to think that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to serve in government or at the very least need to be viewed with distrust or animostiy, what do you all think about President Bush nominating Zalmay Khalilzad (a Muslim) to be our new ambassador to the United Nations? Surely that is a FAR more important post than being one of 435 Congressmen. Do you think Bush has sold our country out to the enemy by choosing a Muslim to represent us to the world? Does this make Bush a traitor and an anti-Christian? Will God punish George Bush for his apostate act? 0 -
I'm not jumping to any conclusions. Quite the contrary, I am asking a few questions. Maybe this man has unswerving loyalty to America and Americans. But some of his actions are just a tad provocative given the current environment.
Anyone know when he converted? Pre-9/11 makes me feel a lot better than if it was post-9/11.
Again, speaking as a political moderate who leans towards the Conservative on many issues and the Liberal on a few others I still wonder why so many ultra-Liberals are in MN and WI.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I'm not jumping to any conclusions. Quite the contrary, I am asking a few questions. Maybe this man has unswerving loyalty to America and Americans. But some of his actions are just a tad provocative given the current environment.
Anyone know when he converted? Pre-9/11 makes me feel a lot better than if it was post-9/11.
Again, speaking as a political moderate who leans towards the Conservative on many issues and the Liberal on a few others I still wonder why so many ultra-Liberals are in MN and WI.
He converted back in the 1980's, when Muslims were our "friends" in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and when Saddam was our "friend" in the fight against Iran.
Keith Ellison was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, and his brother is a Baptist Minister in Detroit. It should also be noted that Keith Ellison's family has been in this country since the 1740's, his ancestors were in this land before the United States even existed as a nation.0 -
It is ironic that he counts on the religious tolerance in this country to allow him to practice the most intolerant religion I can name.
I still find it hard to get all warm and fuzzy over an American who wants to be a Muslim in general but this guy sounds legit.
Doesn't mean that I agree with him on anything...0 -
Says it all. 
0 -
There are fanatics on all sides of every issue and, yes, some people do try to impose their beliefs on others. That cartoon doesn't change the fact that there is a campaign against Christianity going on in this country. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
There are fanatics on all sides of every issue and, yes, some people do try to impose their beliefs on others. That cartoon doesn't change the fact that there is a campaign against Christianity going on in this country.
You are 100% correct...0 -
quote:That cartoon doesn't change the fact that there is a campaign against Christianity going on in this country.
Hardly....
People are being educated and are tired of having it screamed in our faces 24/7...I dont tell anyone what to believe, how to believe or when, and I dont like it when someone is constantly yelling that I will being going to hell, burning forever etc if I dont believe in a certain god or believe the way they say.....I frankly dont give one iota what anyone believes and it would be so very nice if others thought the same and just shut up about it..0 -
You are totally full of it. But then, we already knew that.
I'm not even sure who your comment was directed towards but whomever let's keep it clean, please.0 -
I wouldn't care if politicos took the oath of office with their hand on a stack of WalMart sales flyers. Come to think of it, that might be more appropriate. 0 -
I must have missed something because nobody has been screaming anything in my face 24/7.
There will always be the occasional obnoxious lout yelling in a public place, waving a Bible and screaming about sin and damnation but like I already said, there are fanatics on all sides of every argument.
And I repeat, there is a concerted, organized effort to undermine and remove Christian traditions from society. Agree with doing this or not, there's no denying that it is happening.
I consider myself to be a Christian, but I am Christian Lite. I was in a Catholic church once and they had hand-outs listing the 10 top sins. Imagine my shock when I realized that I have committed 8 of them. [:0] Here I thought that I was a fairly upright, honest and (dare I say it?) righteous individual. Maybe it was only seven?
Depends on your perspective.
Are we finished with the original topic because we seem to be just going back and forth at each other, now.0 -
Lets consider some things.
He did take the office, so he did say:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter"
Now there are those that are worried he has the beleifs:
"that all nations who should not have acknowledged 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."
If he held the beleifs of that faction of muslims, then by swearing allegiance to the very nation he is supposed to make war upon, he would surely be going to hell.
So either he willfully spoke heresy, in which case hes not as radical as you think, or he did not beleive it to be heresy, in which case he's not radical like you think.
They give us so much crap for "desecrating" the koran, seems to me to speak heresy while holding the koran would be even worse.
Thus I conclude that since he took thise oath, upon his holy book, he see's nothing unholy about the oath or incompatible with his faith.
I'm less worried about this guy, than that guy from the Black caucas that was openly saying they need to find a way to exterminate white people.
As to the so called campaign against christianity, it can be summed up in 2 sentances.
#1)We want to teach evolution and not creationism because creationism has no science to back it up and evolution does.
#2) SOME of us want to undo what was done during the 50's McCarthy era red scare, ie restore the pledge to the way it was before "under god" was added.
Thats all I see going on. Nobody stops you from praying in school, but they will stop you from preaching in school if you are considered to have a "captive audience".
We just don't want your faith pushed upon us in government institutions.
Jehovas witness's can still go around preaching all they want(unless there is a no-solicitors sign on someones door or something, in which case door to door may be considered tresspassing), you can still pray in groups in school.
Its not about getting rid of christianity, its about undoing the christians influences forced into our government a few decades ago.0 -
quote:Originally posted by BlackRoses
..we ask for proof of it..
We God fearing and God loving people, ask you to prove there IS NOT a God.
[8]0 -
Looking at his record on the web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ellison_(politician)#Life He does
not to seem to of much help to us. Too much minority oriented by far on
most things. Seems like some blacks want to "get back" at our country by changing to the Muslim religion and change their names to Islamic names and obey the Quoran only. Wonder what the 5th District of MN is mostly composed of in race figures.? MN must be hard up for decent people to run for office.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
36 comments