US Muslim lawmaker under fire as un-American
US Features
By Tony Czuczka Dec 23, 2006, 12:46 GMT
Older Talkback
page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Intolerance is a very dangerous thing. I would want someone to swear on the book that they considered most sacred, not a book someone else holds sacred.
Wouldn't you believe someone more that swore on their own mother's grave and not
'I swear on your mama's grave.'
I side with Goode on this one. Ellison is the one who has the religious agenda. He should stay with tradition as it has been for 250 years. It is a symbolism but Ellison wants to make it personal. His religious agenda has no place here regarding his elected duties. He is an elected servant of the people of all faiths and should not be using this as a platform to further any cause that he may have. He also has a very 'checkered past' and questionable ties to some radical organizations which understandably makes him suspect. Maybe Goode should point it out in a less antagonizing manor but none the less, it is Ellison who insists on making it break from tradition and there is no place for that here.
Islam is the single most intolerant faith in the world, so it is indeed ironic that they would seek a place at the table on a platform of tolerance. I may not agree with all that Goode says, but he is dead on about the Muslims. Their values, and the traditional values of Western Socity do NOT mix. This is an historical fact. Lets not miss the forest for the trees.
If he doesn't believe in the bible, of what value would his swearing in be? For Keith Ellison it might be akin to putting his hand on a stack of paper. This is a story about religious intolerance more than anything else. Our founding fathers would have sided with Keith Ellison on this issue.
They are all prohibited from swearing in on ANY religious text. That’s why these “holy book” swear-ins happen in private ceremonies. If you feel they should be using one religious book over another, or the religious book of their choice, you’re taking the un-American view. Americanism calls for no religious tests for holding office. I think you’d be happier in a country like Iran or Afghanistan.
'Their values, and the traditional values of Western Socity do NOT mix. This is an historical fact.'
No it isn't. Precisely the opposite would be more accurate. Contemporary Muslim values mix very well with traditional Western values. Intolerance of other faiths, homosexuality, subjugation of woment etc. were all prevalent in pre-Enlightenment Europe. The point is more that many of the values of Islam do not mix well with current western values, as we have become more secular.
'Islam is the single most intolerant faith in the world, so it is indeed ironic that they would seek a place at the table on a platform of tolerance.'
Ever hear of the Inquisition? I'm amazed at how soon those of Judeo-Christian descent forget their own faith's violent and intolerant history. Just because there are militant Islamists out there does not mean that the entirety of that religious community should be condemned as intolerant. Hell, just read the Old Testament, seems pretty intolerant to me.
It's ALL a bunch of superstitious nonsense and just keeps fueling wars.
SM wrote: 'I side with Goode on this one. Ellison is the one who has the religious agenda. He should stay with tradition as it has been for 250 years. It is a symbolism but Ellison wants to make it personal...'
Oh, really? And how would you feel if you had been elected to office and were asked to swear on a Koran?
No one said Keith Ellison doesn't believe in the bible, it's just not his primary source of spiritual guidance. But what he does, or anyone else does in a private ceremony, is private. There is no official way to swear in on anything. And thank goodness for that. I hate to see politics corrupt faith any further.
They should be swearing on the constitution, period. We are supposedly a secular country. And, all religions are intolerant. In the past 10 years, the christian right has ruined this country. Thanks to them and their election of Bush - for religious reasons only - got us in the Iraq mess, and thanks to them 3,000 american soldiers and 500,000 iraqis lie dead. All because that idiot Bush is pro-life and anti-gay marriage. Virgil Goode, is moron as is anyone who supports his ideas.
It would appear that contemporary American christianity in the most intolerant sect in the world. Goode is just another ignorant bigot, there is no book required for the swearing in--the swearing in involves stating that the Constitution will be honored--not ANY religious preference. More and more we seem to be devolving into a society of fear, ignorance and hatred.
I suggest studying the crusades for an interesting comparison of Christian and Muslim values.
Perhaps those who feel that Ellison should swear on the Bible should consider whether they would be prepared to swear on the Koran if that happened to be the 'tradition'. To swear on another religion's Holy Book would be likely to cause great discomfort to any deeply religious person; so much so that if it was a requirement it would likely dissuade persons of that religion from even taking office, which is plainly discriminatory.
Swearing on the Bible is tradition because congressmen have traditionally been Christian. To suggest that everybody should swear on the Bible is pretty much to say that congressmen should only be Christians. The tradition of Christian-only congressmen has been broken, and the tradition of only swearing on the Bible should now be broken as well.
It seems plain to me that the actual issue here is that Goode is unhappy about there being a Muslim in congress at all. The issue of which book to swear on is a diversion.
There is no evidence that George Washington used a Bible for swearing in and the fundies' claim that he did so is specious.
Using any allegedly 'holy' book in such ceremonies is superstitious nonsense. The only document used, if any, should be the Constitution of the United States.
I have a muslim friend whose family and he are regular folks who practice their faith and don't care what you do. And there are plenty of Christians who would relish burning heretics and homos at the stake again. How about people just swear on the constitution?
I can't believe that people are saying that they should stick with the tradition of using the bible, while completely ingoring the fact that the first settlements in this country and the foundation it was built upon was Freedom. This included mainly freedom of speech, expression, and, MOSTLY, religion. Yes, there are dangerous Muslims in the world, as there once were crusading Christians who forced non-believers to convert or face death. However, it was the majority of morally upright Christians that helped further civility and society. There are many more righteous and upstanding Muslims in the world than the ones we see each night one television committing terrible inhumane crimes. The type of intolerance represented here just reminds me of what Hitler thought of the Jews in his nation.
If his is co-erced, forced, or required to use the bible to be sworn in, then clearly the US is much futher away from the separation of church and state that our forefathers had implemented in our government. Instead, we will be enforcing not a tradition, but an ideology. The tradition of freedom of religion far outweighs the importance of using a Christian bible. If we enforce one religious ideology, we become Germany, 1938.
I wouldn't trust a Muslim who swore oath on a Christian bible, because his beliefs would also allow him to rescind on his oath. Instead, let him take his oath with the Koran. At least then he'll be required to keep his promise by his own faith, and not that of another persons.
I believe the reason our founding fathers included the clauses that protected ALL religions is because they believed in tolerance towards all religions. During the first 250 years of our nation other religions were until recently a very rare minority, which made it almost impossible for people of other faiths to make it into the two houses. Just because we've been swearing on the bible for the last 250 years does not make it tradition.
I would trust a man who swears on the book of his faith than a man who swears superficially on the book of a faith he doesn't subscribe to.
And even if Islam is the single most intolerant religion in history, Senator Ellison's ascension into American politics is a sign of change. Senator Goode is opressing Ellison and everyone who belongs to the Islamic religion by imposing his own religious beliefs, which in turn encourages more violence and bigotry.
Evil begets evil and as far as I'm concerned, Goode threw the first stone in this case.
As a Christian first, an American second, and a Republican somewhat lower down the line, I am distressed by this attitude. This goes against God’s Word and the Constitution of the United States. If Mr. Goode professes to be a Christian, I hope he will re-examine his thoughts and be a better example of a servant of God. If he is not a Christian, I hope he will uphold the constitution and be an example to the Shiites and Sunnis on how to co-exist with people of different beliefs. And finally, as a Republican, I hope he remembers that at one time, Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest Republicans ever, was viewed as a threat to American values by about ½ of the country.
Yep, we're almost at a religious war right now, and it's against the Christians.
America is NOT a Christian country, and anyone who says it is is a traitor to American ideals...those ideals separate church and state.
The founding fathers were all Christians. Many of the early settlers were refugees from religious intolerance in Europe, and these same Christian founding fathers had the wisdom to see the problems associated with a 'state' religion.
Jesus Christ himself saw the problem and discussed it when he indicated to 'render unto Ceasar etc.'
As the first poster said, each individual swearing into office in this country should swear by what that person holds important (in my mind they should ONLY swear by the constitiution, but I try to be tolerant).
The fact that 'traditionally' a Bible is used, and a Koran has never been used is perhaps more due to the fact that we haven't had a Muslim elected until now.
Muslims are no more dangerous than any other religious followers...the problem is with Muslim EXTREMISTS...and with Christian EXTREMISTS...both varieties are nuts...God help spare us from both!
oooo...that guy from virginia (goode)...has gotta go. scarey that in today's day and age we can have elected officials that are as ignorant as they are...and i am not sitting here typing with rose colored glasses, there are major security issues to be addressed based on current climate, those scrutinites should also be extended to the conservative right, hmmm, the nra...now there is a group of upholding citizens...on that note...MERRY CHRISTMAS
Similar articles
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Computer glitch causes delays at major US airports
- 2. Pentagon launches review in wake of Fort Hood rampage
- 3. Oprah to declare 2011 end to landmark talk show
- 4. Five killed in shooting on Pacific island of Saipan
- 5. Pelosi: No quick end to US travel ban to Cuba
News from Other Sites
Your Talkback on this Story