Muslim Ellison should not sit in Congress

[Patrick Henry]

Muslim Ellison should not sit in Congress
<!-- end head -->Posted: December 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

.....

To support the Constitution of the United States one must uphold an underlying principle of that document, liberty of conscience, which is the right of every person to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, without interference by the government. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" in 1833, observed concerning the First Amendment that "The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God and cannot be encroached upon by human authority without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as well as revealed religion." Justice Story echoed the sentiments of Thomas Jefferson in his Bill for Religious Freedom in 1777 in which he stated that "Almighty God" (El Shaddai in Hebrew) "hath created the mind free and manifested His supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint." It was a specific God who endowed us with a freedom of conscience with which government could not interfere.

.....


Islamic law is simply incompatible with our law. Jaafar Sheikh Idris, founder and chairman of American Open University, a radical Islamic school that has received funding from suspected al-Qaida sources and which supports Islamic law, recently stated that "Islam cannot be separated from the state," and that no Muslim elected to Congress or the White House can swear to uphold the United States Constitution and still be a Muslim, because the law of Allah as expressed in the Quran is supreme. Idris was recently deported for his illegal activities. While we certainly disagree with Idris' radical extremism, he at least knows what Islam is all about!

.....

Story (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53345)
<!-- deck --><!-- end deck -->

[DoctorDoom]

A Muslim's loyalty MUST be to Islam if he is to remain a Muslim. That's the nature of the beast. He therefore cannot swear loyalty to a non-Islamic nation, and indeed he is required by Islam to work to impose it on Dar al-Harb countries, e.g., the US.

[Patrick Henry]

A Muslim's loyalty MUST be to Islam if he is to remain a Muslim. That's the nature of the beast. He therefore cannot swear loyalty to a non-Islamic nation, and indeed he is required by Islam to work to impose it on Dar al-Harb countries, e.g., the US.

That, is a FACT. Of course, the apologists will have nothing to do with facts.

[Lazarus]

The election of this Muslim to the US Congress is just a sign of the trend of cultural decay in this country... In 50 years, I dont expect to recognize this country we call America today... I hope that God will see fit to call me home before I see this place rot away...

[Rhino]

That, is a FACT. Of course, the apologists will have nothing to do with facts.Your 'facts' are not factual, but merely an opinion, and duly noted. And you seem to think the word 'apologist' is derogatory, since you sling it like an insult. You might want to look up the definition. Everyone on this board is an apologist.

[Patrick Henry]

Your 'facts' are not factual, but merely an opinion, and duly noted. And you seem to think the word 'apologist' is derogatory, since you sling it like an insult. You might want to look up the definition. Everyone on this board is an apologist.

Correction: Apologist for Islamo-fascism


Someone once said that if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that hollers is the one that got hit.

So, feel free to continue your childish antics of attacking the poster and avoiding the merit of the content of the article.

Btw.. I didn't write the article, don't like the FACTS, take it up with him.

[Pennville_Bill]

Your 'facts' are not factual, but merely an opinion, and duly noted. And you seem to think the word 'apologist' is derogatory, since you sling it like an insult. You might want to look up the definition. Everyone on this board is an apologist.

Well said............

[Patrick Henry]

* sniff! *

[Rhino]

So, feel free to continue your childish antics of attacking the poster and avoiding the merit of the content of the article. What attack?

And I did address the content. He has his opinion, which you agree with, but I do not.

EDIT: And I've never been an apologist for Islamo-fascism.

[Lazarus]

A Muslim's loyalty MUST be to Islam if he is to remain a Muslim. That's the nature of the beast. He therefore cannot swear loyalty to a non-Islamic nation, and indeed he is required by Islam to work to impose it on Dar al-Harb countries, e.g., the US.It is my VERY STRONG OPINION to also agree with Doc's observation...

[Rhino]

LOL! Gotcha, Laz.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Everyone on this board is an apologist." --Rhino

According to Merriam -Webster online, an apologist is one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something. I believe the inferred adjective in this case is "Muslim", or "Islamic".

OOPS! Never mind. It's been called.

[Rhino]

Oh, I knew the context. Some people just seem to sling the word like it's an insult sometimes. Defending someone or something, in and of itself, is hardly worthy of derision.

And PH did clarify the remark.

[Wolfcounsel]

The word "apologist" sounds like someone trying to explain how good something that is bad, is. I like "defender" better to describe somebody, like conservatives, trying to explain to dumb liberals how good something that is good, is.:evilgrin:

[pinqy]

A Muslim's loyalty MUST be to Islam if he is to remain a Muslim. That's the nature of the beast. He therefore cannot swear loyalty to a non-Islamic nation, and indeed he is required by Islam to work to impose it on Dar al-Harb countries, e.g., the US.
But what if he's not a "true Muslim" as you have defined it?

And the irony, of course, is that those here speaking against Muslims in Congress are arguing against the explicit words of the Constitution.

[Wolfcounsel]

"And the irony, of course, is that those here speaking against Muslims in Congress are arguing against the explicit words of the Constitution." --pinqy


I don't believe the founding fathers expected a demonic cult of death to have branches in America. Either that, or they would not recognize Islam as a religion, but as a death sect, completely against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Islam Sucks!<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[DoctorDoom]

But what if he's not a "true Muslim" as you have defined it?Not as I define it, troll. As Islam defines it. But of course facts are alien to you liberalosers.

[pinqy]

Not as I define it, troll. As Islam defines it. But of course facts are alien to you liberalosers.
Ok, what if he's not a "true Muslim" as you claim Islam defines it?

[pinqy]

"And the irony, of course, is that those here speaking against Muslims in Congress are arguing against the explicit words of the Constitution." --pinqy


I don't believe the founding fathers expected a demonic cult of death to have branches in America. Either that, or they would not recognize Islam as a religion, but as a death sect, completely against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They did specifically debate and mention the fact that a lack of religious tests would allow Muslims, Pagans, and Atheists into office. The consensus seems to be that was a part of the religious liberty they strived for. Similar complaints about Catholics persisted as well, that a Catholic's first loyalty had to be towards the Pope. The answer of course is that not all Catholics or Muslims feel that their religion in anyway conflicts with their oath towards the Constitution.

[heikediguoren]

The word "apologist" sounds like someone trying to explain how good something that is bad, is. I like "defender" better to describe somebody, like conservatives, trying to explain to dumb liberals how good something that is good, is.:evilgrin:

The two words have nearly identical meaning, although the "-ist" suggests that an apologist has made a commitment to protecting an idea, while a defender has no such devotion. Ultimately, though, the choice depends on whether the speaker prefers Latin (defensum) or Greek (apologia) roots.

[DoctorDoom]

Ok, what if he's not a "true Muslim" as you claim Islam defines it?Not as I claim Islam defines it, troll. As Islam defines it.

[gnome]

I see plenty of reasons not to vote for the guy if you expect he'll hold his Muslim beliefs over the laws of this country.

But, if you intends to ban him from holding office, how would you write the law that does so?

[Ant]

A Muslim's loyalty MUST be to Islam if he is to remain a Muslim. That's the nature of the beast. He therefore cannot swear loyalty to a non-Islamic nation, and indeed he is required by Islam to work to impose it on Dar al-Harb countries, e.g., the US.

Aren't Christians loyal to God/Christianity before country too?

[pinqy]

Not as I claim Islam defines it, troll. As Islam defines it.
And you still haven't actually answered the question. The point remains that not all who call themselves Muslims agree on all matters of doctrine including co-existence with non-Muslims and whether or not Islam should control the government. That's a fact and is evidenced by the many countries that are Muslim dominated but do not have Islamic law.

In short, it doesn't matter what the "real" message of Islam is as long as there are competing claims as to what it is. You have to judge each individual's actions and not assume what their individual beliefs must be because of what you claim (and you know very well that many Muslims disagree with you) Islam says.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Ultimately, though, the choice depends on whether the speaker prefers Latin (defensum) or Greek (apologia) roots." --heikediguoren

I feel silly using self-apology to fight off an assault on me. I prefer self-defense. LA-LALA-LALA:dancers: <!-- / message -->

[Naturalized-Texan]

It pains me to disagree with some of my fellow conservatives, but under our Constitution's guarantee of religious liberty and the principle of no religious test being required for serving in elective office, Ellison, having been duly elected to Congress, should NOT be barred from serving in Congress.

[Wolfcounsel]

"...under our Constitution's guarantee of religious liberty and the principle of no religious test being required for serving in elective office,..." --Naturalized-Texan

The politician claims to be a Muslim, does he not? What normal person calls Islam something else besides a murdering sect for animals disguised as humans? I do not consider Islam a religion in the minutest sense of the word. Who's next? Some punk SOB from a major gang?

[Rhino]

That's the point of no religious test.

[Wolfcounsel]

I call Islam a major worldwide gang of thugs, together with their cowardly counterparts, moderate Muslims. Islam is not far from turning into another Mara Salvatrucha, in my opinion. Give them time, and give elected Muslims time. Their true colors will appear soon enough.

[Patrick Henry]

Muslims are well on their to Islaminizing our country using our very Constitution to do it. Hooray!

[Rhino]

Islaminizing..... Catchy.

[Patrick Henry]

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Omar Ahmad
Co-Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

[Rhino]

That's one.