Which is worse for a Muslim Congressman?

I was listening to a radio talk show today and the guy was discussing the Keith Elison issue. You know, the newly elected Representative who happens to be a Muslim.

And he made an interesting point, and I would like to come at it from a “being true to yourself” angle.

He was saying that there are Muslim Imams who teach that if a Muslim were to try to uphold the U.S. Constitution then they would cease to be a Muslim. I guess we would compare it to a latae sententiae excommunication.

But in order to be a Congressman, he should theoretically make an effort touphold the Constitution.

** So** **IF there it is true that Muslim should not be pro-US Constitution
and IF it is true that a Congressman should uphold the Constitution…

Then which is worse…

Congressman Elison is a poor Muslim, and rejects his faith in his personal life

Or, Congressman Elison is a poor Congressman?**

I’m not saying either way, I’m just setting it forth for discussion. You could put yourself in his shoes as a Catholic, Protestant, Jehovah Witness, whatever your faith may be and consider the question.

Islamic Imams are not like popes or patriarchs…Their preaching is more like that of a local pastor. They may come from one of several different schools of Islamic thought and Qur’anic interpretation. Based on this, unless these Imams meet the requirements necessary to declare a fatwa against this congressman, their words remain their own. The Qur’an is always open to private interpretation, but to carry-out an authoritative action, certain requirements must be met.

If he cares about upholding the Constitution, then he must do the job required of him: he must uphold it despite his faith. But if he cares about his faith, then he should probably figure out if he if compromising it by upholding the Constitution.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:

O really now…why should anyone pay attention to those particular alledged Imams in the first place, and what do those so-called Imams base their opinions on? Curious minds want to know :hmmm:

Thanks Alexius, that sounds like a good way to view the situation. And it pretty much wipes my question off the map of relevancy. Which means we all have one less thing to worry about!

Well I was thinking that if a person were a Muslim then what the Imams taught might hold some signifigance. It may or may not.

Most Muslims I’ve known (in college I knew several and was friends with a few of them) don’t really care or much less know what this or that Imam teaches. They know a few basic things about Islam and that defines their Muslimity.

But for non Muslims, like you and I, I suppose the only reason we would be interested would be to learn what some Muslims teachers teach. Who knows, it could be relevant research some day

Hello,

Muslims should uphold justice and reject injustice. If the US constitution is a good document then muslims should uphold it. If it is a bad document then muslims shouldnt. There is nothing called a muslim would cease to be muslim because he upheld theUS constitution. For those Imams who issued this statement they have to provide extensive evidence from the Quran and Hadith and to provide evidence that the US constitution goes against Islam . They do not have a blind authority over us Muslims.

salam

Meedo

Either way, he is horrible for our country. His being elected just proves that more votes is not better than quality votes.

I wonder if i can say the same about christian members of parliment in my country and every body be ok with it .

Actually they are very fine men . But your statement shows that america is a very prejeduced place to be compared to the other countries which it criticize .

salam

Obviously this issue is very similar to the can President Kennedy be a goof executive in the WH or was the Pope going to be calling the shots.

Just because he is a Muslim does not make him un-American. He needs to be judged by the merits. We do not want to follow the Senate Democrats’ call for practicing Christians who are conservative to stay out of public life. This is the open minded approach.

It should be followed with the more cynical approach that recognizes that Islamic culture is not Western and they do not play by the same rulebook. The Bible and Tradition are very different from the Koran. We must not forget that unlike Jesus and Moses, Muhammad was a military leader and conquest was immediate.

I simply want to point out that not all wild animals bite but if one does bite you do not be surprised. You should have been more careful and aware.

Is the basis for this actions he has taken as an elected official or simply the fact of his existence?

I am confused about the “more votes” comment–could you clarify your meaning?

The poster who referred to Kennedy is on target. I will refer all here to President Kennedy’s campaign speech regarding separation of church and state:

beliefnet.com/story/40/story_4080_1.html (quote below is found on the third page).

But let me stress again that these are my views–for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters–and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as President–on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject–I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come–and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible–when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith–nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency–practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution…so help me God. "

You are right to point out that culture makes a difference in one’s attitude toward one’s religion. There have been many examples of American Catholics having a different attitude toward the dictates of Roman Catholicism than those in some other countries, for example.

Ellison is a direct product of Western culture, and even more, of specifically American culture. He is from Michigan, his grandfather was from Louisiana. He was actually raised Catholic.
keithellison.org/StribOpEd.htm

Much of what is referred to as “Islamic culture” is actually linked to the cultural practices of some Middle Eastern countries rather than the teachings of the Koran.

Islam and democracy are not compatible, period!

"Were we to allow Ellison to swear on a text that states his oath does not have to be truthful because he is making it to infidels, or that his allegiance is to a Higher Authority than the Constitution and he does not have to respect our nation’s laws to the degree they conflict with Sharia or the Koran, then his oath would not be equivalent to an oath taken on the Bible. To swear on a book that is in direct conflict with the purpose of our oath, renders the oath meaningless. The object of the oath matters.

However, there is no religious test for elected office, and nobody is trying to force Ellison to swear on the Christian Bible. He can make his affirmation under penalty of perjury, promising to tell the truth and uphold our man-made laws. This would not preclude him from practicing the religion of his choice.

From a legal standpoint, Ellison’s promise to swear in on the Koran is much ado about nothing, as he is doing no such thing. The official swearing-in ceremony will take place in the House chamber, where the speaker of the House will administer the oath to all House members en masse and no religious texts will be utilized. The subsequent private swearing-in ceremony is nothing more than a photo op and has no legally binding significance. It is at these individual ceremonies that congressmen traditionally pose with the Bible. (In some official positions, the actual Bible is used in the administration of the oath.) Nevertheless, Ellison’s insistence on using the Koran in his individual ceremony is unprecedented. He is making a political statement that raises questions about his loyalties and values. Does he believe in Sharia law or freedom? Does he respect the authority of nation states or only that of the Nation of Islam? Does he believe in tolerance and equality between Muslims and non-Muslims? Does he believe in freedom of speech even when it slanders Islam? Can he, in good conscience, uphold our man-made constitution even when it conflicts with the Koran?

In answering these questions, Ellison’s background does not allay any concerns. A black convert to Islam, Ellison was active with Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, has a history of supporting anti-Semites, cold-blooded cop-killers (Mumia Abu Jamal) and other questionable characters.

Even more frightening, Ellison’s campaign was substantially financed by prominent members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization many experts consider to be a Hamas front group. (See “The Real CAIR” by Joseph Farah on WorldNetDaily; “CAIR’s Pro-Hamas Press” by Joe Kaufman on FrontPageMag.com; and “CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment” by Sharon Chada and Daniel Pipes, published by Middle East Quarterly.) He recently spoke at the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America, touted by counter-terrorism expert Steve Emerson as terrorist front groups. He also spoke at the North American Imams Federation (NAIF) and his lecture flowed into a session at the American Open University, a radical Wahabbi school that trains many of the NAIF Imams.

Reinforcing his pro-Islamist stance, was Ellison’s celebration speech in Dearborn, Mich.—the hotbed of Hezbollah supporters. He promised allegiance to Allah before a crowd cheering, “Allahu Akbar!” (Allah is great!)—the final words of the 9/11 hijackers before crashing into the Twin Towers.

CAIR’s charge that any criticism of Ellison stems from “Islamophobia” is bogus. Had Ellison’s past demonstrated a condemnation of terrorists, and exhibited moderation, inclusiveness, and tolerance, perhaps we could have entertained this criticism with some degree of credibility. However, Ellison’s extremist history makes CAIR’s allegation laughable.

cont.

cont.

**At a time when we are engaged in a global war with radical Islam, it is alarming that citizens of the U.S. have elected someone who appears to be in bed with our enemy. To date, Keith Ellison’s alliances have been far from mainstream. But our real war is ideological. We will not achieve victory by appeasing Islamists and ignoring their goals of world domination in the name of political correctness. Freedom, including religious freedom for people of all faiths, is our greatest asset. But when an interpretation of one’s private faith crosses the line into a political ideology that conflicts with the freedoms and tolerance of others, we must take heed. **

**Ellison’s insistence on using the Koran at his private ceremony must be seen in the context of the incremental Islamatization of America. Some Muslim extremist groups, posing as mainstream, advocate actions to desensitize citizens to their anti-freedom goals and try to silence those who oppose them. Ellison’s swearing-in ceremony is just the beginning. Follow his money, his faith, and the company he keeps. I suspect his votes on the House floor will reflect more of the same—an allegiance to values contrary to the Judeo-Christian Bible, contrary to the goals of freedom and tolerance, and sympathetic to political agenda of CAIR. **

humanevents.com/article.php?id=18733

Wake up, America!

Vickie

As for being “prejudiced”, we are only trying to save our democratic form of government from those who want to destroy it!

I find it chilling to hear someone say that “God has always deemed some people worthless” as you stated in another post! You are also very ungrateful to the pharaohs, whom you also called “worthless”! What would Egypt be like without its wonderful ancient history and the tourist industry it attracts?

I also wonder what Ramesses II would have thought of Muhammad if he’d been around at the time! :smiley:

Don’t muslims see the Quran as their rule of law? Then how could a muslim swear to defend and protect the Constitution of the the United States - OUR rule of law? Our constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all. Islam only recognizes islam. I don’t see how he could do both.

Swearing in of Congressman elect **Elison **
on a document which in all aspects rejects the elements of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights seems to me to be a very gullible move on the part of those sympathetic to this newly elected congressman.

The Koran rejects:

Freedom to worship
Freedom to assemble
Freedom to bear arms
Freedom of religion
Freedom of the press
Etc.

How can this man swear on a book which it itself contradicts the very oath he takes? Isnt taking the oath on the Koran a non-sequitor? That is, whatever he swears is negated by the very book he took his oath on?

It would have been better to take his oath on the book of English Law rather than the Koran. Our very Constitution and BillofRights was fashioned after passages in the Bible. Now we are asked to divert our priciples away from God fearing principles for the sake of being politically correct. We are a very educated country but we are also a very gullible country and this gullibility will lead us to our ultimate ruin.

My basis for saying that is both. As an elected official, I believe he is horrible. As a muslim, I think he has no business being an elected official in a Western civilization like ours. Especially since the whole of his people have declared war on us and our allies.

The more votes comment was meant to point out that by simply getting more people to vote, you are usually not getting quality votes. And that is why you get people like this voted in. I would argue that it’s better to have only 30% of the population vote if they are well informed and educated, vs. having 90% of the population vote if they are uninformed and make poor choices. So far our country has proven this to be largely true.

And using Kennedy as an example of Democracy and Catholicism is another example of a poor choice. Being a Catholic, he should not have supported a lot of the issues he did as a democrat. Being well connected to organized crime and corruption, he was a lousy choice for a President. So, poor Catholic, poor President. Not a good example to use. Sorry if you like him, but it’s true.

I refer you to archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html

“Q. What is the source of the philosophy found in the Constitution?
A. The book which had the greatest influence upon the members of the Constitutional Convention was Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws, which first appeared in 1748. The great French philosopher had, however, in turn borrowed much of his doctrine from the Englishman John Locke, with whose writings various members of the Convention were also familiar.”

People who are sworn into office with a hand on the bible are not pledging to make pork illegal, stone kids who talk back to their parents, stone people caught in adultery, kill ‘idolators’ (ie, people of any other faith – oops, so much for freedom of religion!), illegalize fabric of mixed fibers, etc. Just because it’s in the book doesn’t mean it must be followed in modern times, as the falling-by-the-wayside of (most of) Leviticus shows us with Christianity.

They take an oath and swear by its contents that they will faithfully fullfill the office of which they are to enter. The contents of the Koran is in direct contradiction of our rights. I can not put it more simply than this.

“…that they are endowded by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and amonst them are life, liberty and the persuit of happiness” are not metophorical words. They mean something and stand for something. The Koran subjugates these rights under Sharia Law. Rights are not part of the Koran plain and simple.

My dear friends, contained within the Constitution are the seeds of its very own destruction. And if we, the caretakers, are not careful enough we will unfortunately experience the germination of these seeds all too soon.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.