Check out this little snip from Memeorandum, this morning:
(Striped of links)
Agence France Presse:
Congressman says Muslim lawmaker’s election threatens US values+
Discussion: cair.com and Think Progress
There seems something of a pattern developing, here.
Let’s see… We get a Republican defending American values, and the French raise hell, so does CAIR, and the American left, too.
Like it or not, Rep. Virgil Goode is quite correct; It DOES represent a threat to our society. Accuse me of bigotry and intolerance, if you like, but the fact remains that what we’re talking about is allowing a foundational shift in our society. I’m willing to bet many of you don’t think so. Then again, I’m equally sure the French didn’t think so, either, a while ago.
You see, here’s the problem; There has never been a great culture, inclduing those of the west, that did not have one religion or another at or near the root of it. Even the more secular cultures, have such religions… and the moral values of those religions… at their root. The problem, here is being mis-cast, as in this article in the NY Times:
“Keith Ellison serves as a great example of Muslim Americans in our nation, and he does not have to answer to you, to me or anyone else in regards to questions about his faith,” said Mr. Pascrell, whose district includes many Arab-Americans.
While this controversy that Goode brings to the fore, is certainly driven by religion, where the problem really comes in, is in the cultural morality and values that eminate from the religions in each culture… values and moralities which in majority have adherents throughout the culture… even the not particularly religious.
“I’m not a religious scholar, I’m a politician, and I do what politicians do, which is hopefully pass legislation to help the nation,” said Mr. Ellison
But what is politics, but a reflection of one’s personal values? And are not one’s personal values at least affected by if not directed by, one’s religion?
And all this would be true even without the more visable threat involved, that Dennis Prager brought up:
“Ellison’s ..(taking the oath of office on the Koran)… will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal — the Islamicization of America”
This stuff simply cannot be discounted, folks. The French, the Brits, and to a lesser degree the Canadians are our coal-mine-canaries… and they’re choking to death.
Update: (DavidL) Larry King, Wolf Blitzer interviewed Ellison. Scott at Powerline, writes “CNN has a lot to learn about Keith Ellison:”
Before CNN turns itself over to Ellison again for instructions in the American way, it might want to take a look at “Keith Ellison for Dummies”and “Louis Farrakhan’s First Congressman.” It might want to ask Ellison what branch of Islam he follows in reconciling Sharia law with the United States Constitution, or with homosexual rights, abortion rights, and the feminist agenda. Surely one of these days a bigfoot journalist like Wolf Blitzer will ask Ellison a serious question.
To what brand of Islam does Ellison profess to believe, and to what extent do Ellison’s professed beliefs conflict with fundamental American values? We are willing to ask Mitt Romney. Why not Ellison?
Tags: BitsBlog, Social Issues
December 21st, 2006 at 15:47
Prager may be right, but from where I stand what has happened is merely that one segment of the American population has barely begun to emerge from the background noise. If Muslims in this country start wanting shari’a law enacted, or demand that Barack Obama be executed as an apostate, that’s when I’ll worry.
December 21st, 2006 at 16:06
But you see, that HAS already happened… and Canada is the nearest example.
December 21st, 2006 at 23:25
But Ellison taking his oath on the Koran doesn’t seem to have anything to do with any of it, is what I’m saying. The only way to stop members of Congress from choosing to take their oath on the Koran is to make sure Muslims never get elected to Congress. And if the voters in a district choose to elect a Muslim, I don’t see that as a prima facie threat to the American political or legal system.
It’s what Ellison does as a member of Congress after he’s sworn in, that matters.
December 22nd, 2006 at 6:09
I agree that the voters of Minnesota have the right to elect a congressman of their choosing. Yet the problems presented by Keith Ellison are two fold. One, Ellison is toady for CAIR, Council for American Islamic Relations. Two, CAIR is a Islamofascist front group. The proper solution might be to not seat Ellison, but I don’t think Mrs. Pelosi is up to that. Having Ellison in Congress puts the nation one step closer to Sharia law.
I am perfectly willing to respect a citizen’s right to worship as they alone see fit, save when their religion is dedicated to killing non believers.
December 22nd, 2006 at 7:31
Having Ellison in Congress puts the nation one step closer to Sharia law.
I don’t disagree — I just think it’s still background noise at this point, and it could just as easily fade away as grow into a real threat. It’s just too early to get up in arms about this.
Watch him, yes. Make a federal case out of his choice of book, no.
December 22nd, 2006 at 8:31
Background noise sure, but a rather ominous one. Mliitant Islam is the problem in something like twenty-one out twenty-two insurgencies in the World today. Keith Ellison is tied to CAIR, and CAIR is Islamofascist. The MSM media is willing to make an issue of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. Well Mormonism is far more benign religion than Islam.
December 22nd, 2006 at 8:50
Can we take a rather bold, and non-standard action before he’s sworn in, as any indication of what he’ll do once he IS sworn in?
December 22nd, 2006 at 8:57
If Ellison is willing to carry water for CAIR before he takes office, he sure will be willing to do no less afterwards. Remember CAIR orchestrated the Flying Iman’s practice sky jacking, and Ellison is defending the iman’s. It was a dry run for a sky jacking and Ellison is defending it. Just think, I Ellison were but Mormon, we’d be free to impugn his religion.
December 22nd, 2006 at 22:37
That question becomes particularly potent when one considers we’ve not seen any evidence of bands of desperate Mormons blowing themselves up, or flying planes into buidlings, just to kill non-Mormons.