He took the oath on the Koran instead of the bible.
2006-12-04 07:37:36 · 34 answers · asked by ? 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Our country was indeed founded on religious freedom, but to our founders that meant freedom to practice Christianity in the way they wanted to. They openly said they were founding the country on Judeo-Christian thought. Mr. Ellison's refusal to take an oath on the book on which our society was founded, is disrespectful to this country's heritage.
In the current times, it is very politically correct to say all faiths should be equal. .. blah blah blah, but the truth is, some faiths are kinder than others. Islam was indeed founded on violence. It isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact - it is documented in their own religious books (Koran, Hadith) and other historical sources.
I think that Ellison was easily elected in Minnesota because it is traditionally one of the most liberal states in the union (I know, I lived there for 20 years!). But there are several political organizations that are suspicious of Ellison's connections to terrorist groups, and are watching him closely. Time will tell whether he retains office.
It bothers me personally, that he insisted on taking the oath on the Koran. The Koran is a book which advocates the violent overthrow of governments, justifies deliberate lying and deceit to further the cause of Islam, condones the killing of "infidels" (Christians and Jews), the abuse of women and children. Mohammed was a soldier and a violent man all his life, and killed many people with his own hands. HE wrote the Koran.
While there are incidents of violence in the Old Testament of the Bible, it does not advocate murder and violence and abuse the way the Koran does. The New Testament, moveover, calls for non-violence - it goes without saying that Christ was not violent. (The only passages in the Koran calling for non-violence are cancelled out - in the Muslims' own teaching - by later verses that advocate killing nonbelievers.)
Now, which would YOU rather have, People? Someone who swears an oath on the Bible, and understands the principles of law and conduct upon which western society was built, or a man who has documented ties to international terrorist groups and swears on a book like the Koran?
Mac at ASKEW
http://askew.blogharbor.com
2006-12-04 07:45:32 · answer #1 · answered by Mac 6 · 1⤊ 8⤋
Muslims are not aliens or different from the rest of the world. There over a billion worldwide. People, regardless of religion should have the ability to run for office and swear on something they believe in. I would rather he take oath on the Koran which he believes in rather than something he doesnt. It only makes sense since America is the land of the free. Dont forget freedom of religion.
I think that you would be surprised how much of an impact muslims had throughout America's history. Some of the English words have Arabic origin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Arabic_origin
I would also like to tell you that Muslims have been in the Americas even before Columbus. You wont read this in the histroy books but history proves this. Feel free to read this article about this subject:
Islam in America before Columbus
http://www.themodernreligion.com/ht/before-columbus
2006-12-04 08:15:16 · answer #2 · answered by Noms 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
What is wrong with a Muslim being in Congress and why is it such a big deal that he took the oath on the Qur'an instead of the Bible? Why should he have to take the oath on the bible when he is not Christian? I don't see a problem with either. Though if you ask me he is not Muslim since he agrees with abortion and supports gay rights even though both of those are against Islam. But that's my opinion. Aside from everyone in America seems to think Muslims should all be killed or thrown in GIMO. Quit making a big deal of it.
2006-12-04 07:45:23 · answer #3 · answered by baddrose268 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
1. He got elected because more people voted for him than for any other candidate. (Don't you know this already? Have you taken any classes on how our government works, or the electoral process or ANYTHING about the U.S.?)
2. A. NO HOLY BOOK AT ALL is required for the oath. It's just tradition.
B. Since he's Muslim, it would be bizarre for him to swear on the bible, whihc is someone else's holy book, not his. Would YOU swear on a copy of the Upanishads or "Science and Mind"?
2006-12-04 08:09:49 · answer #4 · answered by Praise Singer 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Probably because he was the best man for the job.
Of course he would take the oath on the Koran. He's a Muslim, taking the oath on the Bible would be meaningless to him.
2006-12-04 07:42:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 3⤋
Why would he be elected into our Congress? Because he was voted in. He took the oath on the Qur'an instead of the Bible? Good, 'cause that's what's most relevant to him. If you were elected, would you take the oath on the Qur'an? Not of you're a Christian, you'd swear in on the Bible instead.
He was voted in. The people have spoken, woohoo!
2006-12-04 07:57:26 · answer #6 · answered by Dolores G. Llamas 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Because the people of Congressman-elect Ellison's state believed he was the best candidate and would serve the interests of his constituents.
What difference does it make whether he takes the oath in January with his hand on the Qur'an or some other book? The oath is the important thing, and Congressman-elect Ellison will be taking the same oath as everyone else. That he has chosen to take the oath on the Qur'an makes perfect sense for a Muslim. Swearing on the Christian Bible wouldn't make sense for a non-Christian. I personally am astounded that anyone has even questioned this. Are we not a nation that cherishes freedom of religion? Why do some people think they have the right to decide what religion another person should be?
Mac: "Our country was indeed founded on religious freedom, but to our founders that meant freedom to practice Christianity in the way they wanted to."
Bah. That's merely you projecting your wishful thinking. It's clear to those who have read the correspondence and journals of the founders that they were not thinking only of Christians when they wrote about freedom of conscience.
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" ~ James Madison, "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," June 20, 1785.
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." ~ Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia," 1782.
2006-12-04 07:41:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 3⤋
maybe you should look into the gentleman, Keith Ellison, who I voted for (in Minnesota). The fact that you label him without even knowing who it is shows how ignorant and close minded you are. I am surprised you didn't mention he is black too!!!
His ideas and where he stands on the issues are great. He thinks we should have a universal healthcare system so that EVERYONE can see a doctor and get need operations and medicines, not just the rich. He says this about homosexual marriage "How does picking on gays help us to fight for justice, to set the captives free, to rebuild the wasted cities or to feed the hungry? Would a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage help us to welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, heal the sick, or visit those in prison? Will it save one heterosexual marriage? Will it cause one couple who is living together to go ahead and jump the broom?" (if you know about biblical virtues the second question refers to them). He is for women's rights to their own bodies. He is a well spoken man who obviously caught the attention of a normally conservative state.
oh.. AND I am not Muslim, for the guy who said it was Muslims that voted him in.
2006-12-04 08:08:34 · answer #8 · answered by bensbabe 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
How much meaning do you think a Muslim would attach to swearing in with his hand on your superstition book and could you trust such an oath insincerely sworn. How about an Atheist, do you think they should be forced to swear to a book they consider rubbish and could you trust any Atheist who committed such a lie. Personally, I find it hard to even vote for someone who believes truth comes from a book written thousands of years ago by men who thought the world was flat and disease was caused by demons.
2006-12-04 08:32:23 · answer #9 · answered by iknowtruthismine 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Just like a christain is been elected in our muslim parliment and takes oath from a person of his religion.. well when a muslim country can give your person his rights why can't you see a muslim taking oath on Quran???
Wow !! and you claim to be the greatest democracy of the world. funny isn't??
2006-12-04 08:02:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Muslims are good people for the most part. The Koran is a holy book too, so why not take an oath on it?
2006-12-04 07:41:27 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 4⤋