an historical perspective on a muslim being sworn into congress on the koran
www.wallbuilders.com/resources/misc/ellison.pdf
This is a very thoughtful, intelligent article about the controversy surrounding Rep. Keith Ellison, D.-Minnesota, and his decision to use a Koran for his swearing in ceremony. Enjoy!
This is a very thoughtful, intelligent article about the controversy surrounding Rep. Keith Ellison, D.-Minnesota, and his decision to use a Koran for his swearing in ceremony. Enjoy!
posted by hondo at 12:49 AM
4 Comments:
This is a very interesting writing, but Barton exposes his prejudice when he twice makes the very big (and errant) leap of logic to state that America is “understandably” concerned about Congressman Ellison because he shares the same religion as our attackers. This is absurd. Here is why: 1. Ellison also shares the same religion as our allies and those who we are supposed to be liberating (unless our war really is a war against Islam). 2. Ellison’s religion, Islam, is varied among those who practice it just as Christianity is varied among those who practice it. That doesn’t put Ellison on the terrorist side anymore than it puts you on side with any criminals who call themselves Christian. So any concern is NOT understandable as Barton believes. 3. I think that Barton is blowing this out of proportion. I don’t think that America is that concerned about this issue. I just don’t see any concern other than from right-wingers and fruitcakes like Virgil Goode and Glenn Beck.
Barton goes on to spell out his bigger concern: secularism. Although why he lists secularism as a danger along side with communism I can’t work out. I can’t see that USCIRF has secularism on their watch-list. Barton says it twice and even appears to provide a reference but he never explains. I suspect that Barton is attempting to credit his own concern with secularism as that of USCIRFs somehow. If you have this one worked out Hondo, I would appreciate knowing the connection…thanks.
But this brings us back to our fundamental disagreement. I don’t believe the state should rule based on religion. It should remain “neutral on matters of belief.” Christians don’t agree on biblical interpretation among themselves, so they certainly should not try to govern a country on religious-based beliefs. I think that makes me a secularist.
What a wonderful example of the liberal thought process. Each and every terrorist attack against the United States during the last 30 years has been committed by Muslims, yet we are not supposed to even take notice when a Muslim is elected to the U.S. Senate? That's absurd! Please understand that I am NOT saying that all Muslims are terrorists. They aren't. There are millions of peaceful Muslims all over the world, and it would be ignorant to ignore that fact. However, all terrorists ARE Muslim, and it would be equally ignorant (or liberal) to ignore that fact as well.
By the way, I was very interested in your statement that government should "remain neutral on matters of belief." Since when is that the liberal position? Liberalism absolutely abhors neutrality on matters of faith. Liberalism teaches that all expressions of CHRISTIAN faith must be eliminated from the public square. Liberalism says that prayers in the name of Jesus Christ are to be forbidden in the halls of government and in public schools, yet non-Christian expressions of faith are permissable acts of diversity. Don't come on to this site and attempt that lame liberal lie about government being neutral about religion. It just isn't true!
All terroris attacks against the U.S. have been by muslims? Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph were Muslims? No wait...they were Christian right wing terroist. Other non-Muslim terrorist include the IRA, Christian Identity, Army of God, Inderjit Singh Reyat, etc. So your statement that "all terrorist ARE Muslim" is wrong. Which enforces my point to you that Ellson shouldn't be conected with America's attackers anymore than Hondo should be connected with Timothy McVeigh.
Regarding govt and matters of beleif. Wikipedia defines secularism as "...within a state that is neutral on matters of belief,... " Is that the liberal position? Hell, I don't know. I'm a liberal and that's my position. You act as if there is a single liberal doctrine somwehere that states defined tennants of liberalism, what you often refer to as the "great liberal playbook." I'm not attempting to put a "liberal lie" on your blog. I just stated my own belief as a comment on your blog entry. The rest is what you read into it based on your own prejudices about liberalsim (or ignorance as you whould have it).
Post a Comment
<< Home