Here is the column that started it all. Keith Ellison, newly elected Democratic Congressman in Minnesota, is a Muslim.
Who cares, right? No big deal. First Muslim Congressman – great for diversity, multiculturalism, blah blah blah…
Ellison has stated that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the Koran.
BIG PROBLEM.
Last time I checked, this country was not founded on Islamic principles – but Judeo-Christian ones (check out Bill O’Reilly’s Culture Warrior). Therefore, if Ellison is going to swear to uphold the principles of THIS COUNTRY (and NOT of any religion), then his oath should be taken on the Bible. This is not a religious issue, but a values issue. It is not being disrespectful to Islam, the Koran, or Keith Ellison himself. He is free to practice his religion and serve the people of Minnesota.
But he has to recognize that this country comes first – and he was elected to uphold, rather than subvert, its values. It also shows, yet again, a lack of assimilation. If you live in the United States – play by the rules. Or we should kick you out.
So who, exactly, is Keith Ellison? Power line did some digging:
“Keith Ellison is the endorsed Democratic candidate for Congress in Minnesota's solidly Democratic Fifth District (Minneapolis). Ellison's local leadership of the Nation of Islam, his defense of the ‘truth’ of an attack on Minneapolis Jews as ‘the most racist white people,’ his affiliation with convicted murderer and Vice Lords gang leader Sharif Willis, his support of the Vice Lords gangbangers charged (and subsequently convicted) with the murder of Minneapolis police officer Jerry Haaf, his outrageous attacks on law enforcement authorities, his demand that Symbionese Liberation Army terrorist Sara Jane Olson be freed, his concern for the continuing freedom of convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur on the lam in Havana -- not one of these elements of Ellison's public record has seen the light of day in the local media.”
More background from the Washington Times, which highlights Democratic disapproval with Ellison’s ties to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations):
“But it is top Democrats who have issued some of the most stinging rebukes of CAIR. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's second-leading Democrat, has said that CAIR ‘is unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its association with groups that are suspect.’ Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has stated flatly that CAIR ‘has ties to terrorism.’ Mr. Schumer has special disdain for Mr. Awad and CAIR's other co-founder, Omar Ahmad, saying in a 2003 hearing that both men have ‘intimate connections with Hamas.’"
If you need to be reminded about Hamas, read this.
So what will happen if Ellison takes his oath on the Koran, instead of the Bible?
Prager’s take: “Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.”
This is dead on. As Monica Crowley has repeatedly noted on her radio program, radical Islamists are patient. Any small step into infiltrating American culture will be viewed as a huge victory. As I’ve blogged about before, whether it’s “Flying While Muslim!”, not being allowed to pray while at the gym, or not taking an oath of office on a Bible, the wheels are in motion – not for “tolerance”, but radical takeover.
Here is Prager’s follow-up responding to the original outrage over the first column:
“Why wouldn't Ellison bring a Bible along with the Koran? That he chose not to is the narcissism of multiculturalism that I referred to: The individual's culture trumps the national culture.
“You don't have to be Christian to acknowledge that the Bible is the source of America's values. Virtually every founder of this country knew that and acknowledged it. The argument that founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deists, even if accurate (it is greatly exaggerated), makes my point, not my opponents'. The founders who were not believing Christians venerated the Bible as the source of America's values just as much as practicing Christians did.
“America derives its laws from its Constitution. It derives its values from the Bible. We don't get inalienable rights from the Constitution; we get them from God. Which is exactly what the signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote: We are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, not by government and not by any man-made document. And that Creator and those inalienable rights emanate from the Bible. Keith Ellison's freedom to openly believe and practice Islam and to run for elective office as a Muslim is a direct result of a society molded by the Bible and the people who believed in it, a fact he should be willing to honor as he is sworn in.”
Keith Ellison is forcing the issue here. Bring both books if you want, but stop crying racism and Islamophobia every time someone wants to stand up for America.
I praise Dennis Prager – do you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This post is just disturbing.
Explain to me how the book that the hand is on decides what values the Congressman will be upholding? As far as I know, he is using the book to swear an oath TO HIS GOD that he will uphold our constitution, and defend our country from enemies.
"I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, 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."
I do not see Values or principles listed in that oath.
Besides the point that their is no value/principle reference in the oath, both Islam and Christianity preach love for one another, peace, etc, etc. They both derive from the same monotheistic belief system. And yet you have disdain for Islam's values? Point out to me what values they possess that are egregiously opposed to ours? And please don't quote what extremists say, because I will counter that with the values espoused by radical Christians.
I am particularly disturbed by your comment: "It also shows, yet again, a lack of assimilation. If you live in the United States – play by the rules. Or we should kick you out."
This is the line of thought that made Irish and Italian Catholics second class citizens up until the second half of the 20th century. And people still have disdain for Catholics (don't belive me? well you are in Massachusetts. I have met people in Virginia that have never met a Catholic. And think I pledge my life to the pope and his wishes. No joke.)
Again,
the congressional oath of office is to uphold and defend the Constitution. Not the Judeo-Christian belief system (which by the way Islam is a part of technically).
And chris, we are both Americans. I definitely do not hold the same beliefs (value system, etc.) as you do.
"he was elected to uphold, rather than subvert, its values"
So can I serve my country? Or would I be subverting our American values as well?
Well put Garrett...
My initial thoughts were not to respond to this post, as it is sooo steeped in "prejudice" that it speaks against itself. Not too long ago I myself was touching upon the subject of Islamic fundamentalism. I have frequently spoken out against fundamentalism of all sorts. I believe the milder Christian fundamentalism has the potential to become as ugly as extremist Islamic fundamentalism. I believe the seeds of such venom are plentiful and will likely be planted by carelessness of thought rather than hatred. That is how it begins, and it is why we need to take care with our words. We must not degrade our selves with a similar rhetoric to the enemy
I'm glad Garrett brought up the past & present stigmas of Catholicism. This country was founded by the persecuted. Puritans came here to practice their religion in freedom.
A couple reminders
First Amendment - Religion and Expression "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Next, to further help one understand what our "Founding Fathers" were thinking here is a draft which served as the foundation to the 1st amendment written by Thomas Jefferson. Draft of religious freedom bill It may help with your fuzzy area regarding if they were deists or not.
And apparently the Jewish Community does not care about all of Ellison's extremist views, because they endorsed him!
And last claiming that allowing Ellison to use the Koran to swear upon will embolden the enemy is MAD!!! Mad Mad Mad! Have you forgot how these extremists think? Have you forgotten that they rioted all over a cartoon of Mohammad which was several years old? Banning Ellison from using the Koran is behaving like them! And if we did, it WOULD embolden the terrorists. It would validate to them that this battle is nothing more than a two sided religious crusade.
For most Americans this is a battle for our lifestyle, our right to be individuals, not a battle over whether it is "God" or "Allah". We have to stick to what America stands for. Freedom. It intended to stand for freedom in 1776, and it shouts the word with reckless abandon today, so we had better live to our word, AND our principles.
George, great point:
"Banning Ellison from using the Koran is behaving like them! And if we did, it WOULD embolden the terrorists. It would validate to them that this battle is nothing more than a two sided religious crusade."
A famous neo-con Israeli hawk was in the office today (not comparing you with him, don't worry!) making this exact same point when I talked to him about the issue, but when you see him on Fox News, he admitted he won't be standing up for Ellison. He has to "toe the line".
Chris, great blog. Garret and George haven't a clue about the history of Islam. There is nothing in their history about peace and love. It is a religion of the sword. I worked in a NYS prison for 30 years and watched the Muslim Chaplains make monsters out of black men who were vunerable to hate filled theology. They were by far the most difficult to share the gospel with. It always ended on an angry note when one compared Jesus to Mohammed. Because of political correctness Ellison's opponent would not dare to bring up his former connection to the Nation of Islam (the most violent and looney sect of the Black Muslim movement). They believe there is a huge space ship hovering over the United States just waiting for the opportunity to take out white people (this is for real). May Minnesota be blessed with this Congressman.
In most court rooms in the US one not only do they not use the Bible anymore they eliminate "so help me God". You now swear on your very own self. I see no problem with bring a Superman Comic book to the swearing in ceremony (I'm not kidding). We have such a sorry state of affairs in the Cesspool of Washington that none of this matters anymore. Bill Clinton very special plumbing job in the ORAL OFFICE should have been the end of all immoral criticisms (it has for me). Tony B.
Tony B.
Don't assume what my knowledge of Islam is....I'm well aware Mohammed was a warlord, who brought his people prosperity through jihad. We were lucky to have the Romans around to help craft such a loving accepting religion.
But I must apologize, I mean, I wasn't aware of the section in the Koran that talked about a spaceship. That changes everything! They must have put that black rock in Mecca! Wow it all makes sense now!
Its good that Christians all can get along regardless of their beliefs... I mean they just drink their Guinness and then head out and.... oh, wait, nevermind.
Point was, as you seem to agree... they can swear on whatever they want... and should be able to... comic books.. Did you hear that Superman was a "Christ figure" in the most recent film? :D
Post a Comment