You really should've issued a spew alert. I almost "decorated" my monitor with a mouthful of coffee when I read this!

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Swearing on a Bible has always been an option--hence, Ellison's option to use the Koran.

Given his past involvement with Farrakhan's radical and anti-semitic Nation of Islam, this is likely intended as the "in your face" act that it is perceived to be.

There is also the controversy over CAIR's financial support of his campaign, and lingering allegations that CAIR is tied to terror groups.

And, from Ellison's website:

I am calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I opposed the war before it began; I was against this war once it started and I am the only candidate calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops.

Ellison opposes even a staged withdrawal.

He goes on to suggest that our withdrawal would be followed immediately with "diplomacy." "Peace is won not with a sword, but an olive branch," he says.

Diplomacy may be an option between states. But as soon as we have withdrawn, there will not be a state to whom we may send an ambassador. It will be a bloodbath, likely followed by the ascendancy of an extremist Muslim theocracy.

And set the call for an immediate withdrawal alongside this little tidbit--an excerpt from al-Zawahiri's letter to al-Zarqawi:

So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before unIslamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.

Hate Radio and the Christianists seek to turn Ellison into a modern day Islamoboogeyman.

Ellison is on the record as saying he once supported Farrakhan but has since come to the conclusion that Farrakhan is anti-Semitic (which Farrakhan of course is).

It's interesting that you bring up CAIR's support of Ellison. Hate Radio and Faux News conveniently overlook the fact that these CAIR folks they're demonizing are the same folks that stood next to President George W. Bush scant days after 9/11, when they and Hamas supporter Nihar Awad were called by Bush (direct quote here) ‘good folks standing with me.’”

Ellison is also on the record as saying that Hamas is the single biggest hinderance to peace in the Middle East, which I am sure does not sit well with certain Muslim factions. Strange how those townhall.com folks overlooked that salient point.

As far as Ellison's call for immediate withdrawal, at this point, I'm not so sure that that is such a bad idea. In the long run, Iraq is going to end up with either another strongman seizing power or a moderate-to-extreme Islamic ruling council (a la Iran). American presence is simply delaying the inevitable.

Volley to you, Muddle!

Hate Radio and the Christianists seek to turn Ellison into a modern day Islamoboogeyman

I also think Ellison is an Islamoboogeyman. Cool term.

Ellison is on the record as saying he once supported Farrakhan but has since come to the conclusion that Farrakhan is anti-Semitic (which Farrakhan of course is).

Ellison should have been despised and treated the same as David Duke was. Why is it that it was not acceptable for David Duke's hate linked past to be overlooked but it's fine today to overlook Ellison's hate linked past?

It's interesting that you bring up CAIR's support of Ellison. Hate Radio and Faux News conveniently overlook the fact that these CAIR folks they're demonizing are the same folks that stood next to President George W. Bush scant days after 9/11, when they and Hamas supporter Nihar Awad were called by Bush (direct quote here) ‘good folks standing with me.’”

CAIR is to the Muslim community the same as the Klan is to the White community and the NAACP and the Nation of Islam is to the Black Community. They are all groups that should be shunned and despised by all of us. Each in their own right is Anti-American and filled with their own hate and prejudices.

Ellison is also on the record as saying that Hamas is the single biggest hinderance to peace in the Middle East, which I am sure does not sit well with certain Muslim factions. Strange how those townhall.com folks overlooked that salient point.

One thing for sure is that Al-Queerda and Hamas have all rejected Ellison as a Muslim leader. They equate him regarding his Muslim leadership to that of a woman's private part. But in regards to Ellison preserving this countries heritage and freedom's I would agree with those Townhall.com folks that his agenda won't be Pro-TheAmericaThatMakesUsTheGreatestCountryInTheWorld.

In the long run, Iraq is going to end up with either another strongman seizing power or a moderate-to-extreme Islamic ruling council (a la Iran). American presence is simply delaying the inevitable.

Basmati, you may be right. Our efforts will probably not work. It is even written and prophesied in the Bible that Babylon will never be a peaceful country and they again will rise again to terrorize the world. But what if we never tried? I can see history blaming Bush for not trying. If we fail? Perhaps delaying a strong extreme Islamic ruling council won't be such a bad thing after all.

I don't pretend to have the answers on all of these issues. The only thing I know for sure is that we will never have true peace with the Muslim community around the world. There is no denying their true agenda. As far as delaying the inevitable I hope we can delay it for hundreds of years. All I can say is that everytime they get ugly and stick their militant and hate filled heads up out the holes they crawl out of we need to blast those same heads right off their sorry carcasses so they can go enjoy their virgins. Like I said....I can hope. I can also only hope they are gay virgins.

Well I mentioned the Bible so I guess it's time for you to have at my you-know-whut. Peace! I wish.

Philosopher John Hick's "Religious Pluralism" has become the nearly canonical view among academics in the field of Religious Studies.
It maintains that, whereas all religions do not teach the same thing, they do all accomplish the same thing, namely, the "moral transformation" of their adherents. Thus, all religions are equally valid in that they all make nice people out of otherwise nasty people.

But is that so?

Consider the Thuggee cult in India that was (hopefully) finally extinguished by the British in India in the 19th century. Here, devotion to Kali entailed murdering the innocent.

And people who slit the throats of women and commandeer aircraft into towers full of other people are not particularly nice, even if they do it in the name of their god.

Whether genuine moral accountability is the result of a faith would seem to depend upon the faith. If your "god" calls for carnage, then the direction of transformation would seem to be from nice to nasty--not the reverse.

Of course, it is nonsense to judge the faith itself on the basis of the actions of its adherents. As Chesterton once wrote, saying "Christians persecuted. Down with Christianity!" is like saying, "A Confucian stole my hairbrush. Down with Confucianism!" The issue is whether the theft had anything to do with the essence of Confucianism or was simply the act of a man who happens to wear the label "Confucian."

But this is precisely what has not been settled satisfactorily when it comes to Islam. I, for one, am still not satisfied that the peaceful Muslims among us are consistent with the dictates of their religion. Do we know that the "extremists" are, indeed "extreme" from a Q'uranic standpoint? Or are they, in fact, the true believers? Maybe peaceful Muslims are the Islamic counterpart to Unitarians.

At any rate, at this juncture in our history, it is hardly surprising
that there should be worries over Islamic inroads into American culture. And, as I posted above, Ellison's decision to swear on a Koran is most likely intended as a thumbing of the nose at our national heritage. JFK was the first Catholic president, and this was controversial back then. Suppose that, especially in the context of controversy, he had chosen to place his hand on, say, a papal encyclical for his swearing in.

Our Constitution is a direct product of Enlightenment thought, but it is indirectly the product of a Christian worldview. The notion of individual dignity is rooted in that worldview. The religion of Muhammed had nothing whatsoever to do with the founding of this nation, and it is very difficult indeed to see how the basic tenets of democracy are even consistent with Islamic thought, much less grounded there.

And to have someone in office with sympathies for the likes of Farrakhan is indeed worrisome.

Next election, Tom Cruise will run for office and will be sworn in with his hand on the science fiction of L. Ron Hubbard.

Muddle,
You have expressed much better what I intended. At this juncture of our recent history with Islam we have to be suspicious. Those that are so called peace loving people of Islam are far and few in between; and quite silent I must say. This is not just about swearing on the Koran; it is indeed an attack on our culture and heritage. It’s the small things like these that add up and before you know it, bigger events happen. Many are now in this country (legally or illegally) embracing the Constitution to their advantage but do not embrace the American way.
It has to stop somewhere!

Muddle, I'm no expert on the Koran, but from what I learned while I was in Saudi Arabia, the Koran is "their" version of the New Testament, more or less. They believe in the Old Testament of the Bible, and they believe that Jesus was a great Prophet, but not the literal son of God. They believe that the New Testament was tainted by being transcribed and re-copied, with some of the original meaning being modified to suit the writer's point of view. They claim that the Koran is the direct word of God, which Mohommad wrote down, word for word. Either way, their teachings on how to treat your fellow man are VERY similar to Christian beliefs, including the Golden Rule about treating others as you would have them treat you.

Muddle, you obviously won't take MY word for this, as I'm admittedly not an expert, but from what I have observed, there are millions of Muslims who just want to have kids and live their lives in peace, just like most of us do. Nothing in the Koran calls for making war on Christians or wanton killing such as we are seeing. What we are seeing lately is due to extremists and fanatics who use religion to justify their hatred and violence.

I'm with you on the need to protect OUR heritage and way of life. We need to be more of a melting pot and less concerned with putting each minority culture up on a pedestal like we've been doing lately. However, I don't see a problem with an elected person using a Koran or Tanakh (Jewish bible) in a swearing-in ceremony. It just makes sense that they should swear their oath on the bible of their own religion. Obviously, we have to draw the line at something like "The Church of Man-Boy Love" or similar nonsense, but Islam is one of the major religions in the world and should be respected as such. The hard part is deciding how much leeway to give minorities for their customs, while still preserving the essence of American culture. I don't think there is a black-and-white answer to that; I think we need to find a balance somewhere in the middle.

I agree that the extremists and fanatics are at the helm of the carnage, but why do we not see or hear Muslim clerics or followers condemn these extremists? That puzzles me.
As far as the swearing in, we'll have to agree to disagree :-); if an individual is taking the oath of office under the U.S. Constitution, it should be done on the Bible.

1Hammer, I suspect that the current situation in the Moslem world is similar to the situation in Germany prior to WWII. I'm sure there were a lot of moderate Germans who didn't want to persecute Jews, but they were afraid to speak up. Perhaps we can learn from history and figure out how to encourage the moderate Moslems to assert themselves, and prevent another world war from occurring.

As for using the Koran to swear in, I think that falls into the "separation of church and state" area. However I certainly respect your point of view on that--it's definitely a grey area that's open to debate.

Well, maybe we can put people in jail only if they do this? If he swore on something else--I don't know, maybe his grandmother's apron, maybe he won't go to jail if he gets caught lying? I don't ever recall anyone going to jail for lying in court anyway, with one exception, Martha.
In every trial one side lies about some things and the other side lies about a few more. The lying winner gets money and the lying loser gets away with it.
You know why don't you? We would have to lock up a lawyer after every trial--just the loser.

I'll take that!

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no Bible thumping extreme religious fanatic, it’s not about that.
My point is that we have customs, traditions, and procedures in place on how things are done in this country and my fear is that we continue to adjust and appease in the name of political correctness in order to accommodate others.

Why? I don’t know. I’m all for inclusiveness as long as we stick to traditions and laws.