2007-12-01 00:55:42 · 12 answers · asked by realitycheck 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Correct john, that one too.
2007-12-01 01:01:42 · update #1
What I've have concluded by my observations, Muslims are only peaceful when Christians are being murdered, tortured, or harassed.
2007-12-01 01:03:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
Keith Ellison is one more enigma in American politics. I guess to some extent we have become like the Brits who just love to hate themselves.
Not just Keith Ellison but what about Geo Galloway that distinguished British Gentleman? What did he have to say about Jillian Gibbons? I'd really like to know what that man said.
I think it would be a hoot.
I Cr 13;8a
2007-12-02 06:07:26 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why didn't George Bush (and few hundred other senators and congress representatives) condemn the actions of this Christian husband?
2007-12-01 11:52:42 · answer #3 · answered by I could care less 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Do you even know his name? It's Keith Ellison and if you listen with an open mind to the man speak you soon realize that we need more people like him in Washington.
If you want to know his position on the Sudan why don't you contact his office? Or is that too much trouble?
2007-12-01 09:11:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
I find it quite ironic that conservatives who like to preach about personal responsibility and accountability for one's own actions now want everyone to apologize for the actions of a relatively few extremists (far detached from them) in the name of their religion or culture.
This is no different than calling upon every American of Mexican descent to apologize for all of the immigrants who've entered the country illegally. Of course, modern conservatism is not exactly a bastion of logic.
2007-12-01 09:44:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Probably because Keith Ellison is a representative for the state of Minnesota, not the nation of Sudan.
I didn't see Christian leaders condemn the Land Letter, a letter sent from other Christian leaders to Bush, that praised Bush's plan to rape and pillage Iraq, but I don't hold that against them because I know that only a small minority of Christians supported the mass murder of Iraqi people by the Bush Administration.
2007-12-01 09:02:51 · answer #6 · answered by ck4829 7 · 3⤊ 6⤋
Because to do so would be placing his own life in jeopardy. This is a constant byproduct of radicalism.
2007-12-01 11:30:27 · answer #7 · answered by wider scope 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Add to that the rape victim who was sentenced to a jail term and 200 lashes in Saudi Arabia because she went out in public with an unrelated man.
2007-12-01 09:00:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
HE COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT HER. I NOTICE MANY THINK HE SHOULD ONLY BE INTERESTED IN STATE ISSUES NOT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SUDAN. THESE ARE PROBABLY THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WANT US TO GET INVOLVED IN DARFUR YET WANT US OUT OF IRAQ.
2007-12-01 12:54:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He would not get re-elected if he came out against Muslim violence. Like most politicians he is more concerned with keeping his job then doing his job.
2007-12-01 09:10:05 · answer #10 · answered by Mother 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋