I have long contended people like Nancy Pelosi are unfit for office because they belong to groups like the DSA, Democratic Socialists of America,that want to over throw our form of Government.

Did they not take the oath when the joined the Democratic Caucus which is nothing but a Front Group for the DSA? There are approximately 70 members of that group serving in congress right now that has a mission statement to eliminate private property and redistribution of wealth.

Surely they cannot take an oath to the Constitution when they believe in socialism. Our Country was founded on private property rights as enumerated in the founding document.

I think Judge Moore is absolutely correct. For too long we have allowed our Politicians to ignore the rule of law that is our Constitution with impunity. They have made a mockery of our Republican form of Government by picking and choosing the parts of the Constitution they intend to follow.

Every time I hear a pundit or politician call America a Democracy…I cringe.

Maybe someone could point out when we amended the Constitution to allow a department of education, as an example. Or when we amended the constitution to allow foreign aid to be handed out by a committee in congress.

To be honest, we are about a thousand amendments behind the curve and many things they do in Government today are strictly un-Constitutional.

Our politicians in Congress give lip service to the founding document only when it is convenient for them to follow it.

My 2 cents.

And of course, it’s a square violation of the religious-test clause. He’d counter that he has two other clauses on his side — the qualifications clause

Sorry you are wrong and so is he. That religious test clause can only be hermeneutically interepreted as Denomination.

This is also verifiable in the fact that virtually all states (Save RI) requiring in the Original Consitutions that elected officials uphold the diety of Jesus Christ to hold office.

I know, let’s put it to a referendum and let the people who elected him determine what he swears on.

He ought to be seated. Then, if there is evidence that he has violated his oath of office (such as committing treasonous acts by sending money to terrorist organizations), Ellison should be booted from Congress, arrested and imprisoned.

You mean like violators of the Logan Act are booted from Congress, arrested, and imprisoned? Ellison is a Democrat, they don’t get in trouble when they commit crimes, they get applauded and reelected.

The judge doesn’t have an issue with a Muslim serving in elected office, but with whether that Muslim will be lying in his oath of office. If a person is whole-hearted in their devotion to Islam, to the inclusion of the belief that Islam is the only proper form of societal rule on earth, then that person defies the U.S. Constitution as the foundation of law for this nation.

What he’s really asking is whether Muslims who take their faith seriously can, in good conscience, sincerely agree to uphold the religious clauses of the First Amendment. Which is not a little ironic.

I find no irony here, AP. By the historical standards of this nation, Judge Moore’s monument was in no way innappropriate, and you will be hard pressed to find a single example of him applying his faith in a way that denies anyone else’s complete freedoms under our Constitution.

Christianity presents itself as the only true doctrine of the Almighty’s relationship with man. Yet evangelical Christians like Judge Moore wouldn’t diminish a Muslim’s (Jew’s, Buddhist’s, Taoist’s, Shintoist’s, etc) freedom to be devoted to their faith.

Islam presents itself as the only true doctrine of the Almighty’s relationship with man. How many Muslims would take the same stand for a Christian’s (et al) freedom to their faith? As I understand it, an infidel is less than a human, and given three choices: Conversion, dhimmitude, or death.

Judge Moore’s question, and I find no problem with it, is can a person who believes that honestly uphold the Constitution?

calling the people who don’t believe in violent conversion or the abandonment of personal property not “very good” believers

was stupid and irrational.

do you honestly think that’s helpful?
Nonfactor on December 13, 2006 at 10:01 PM

I believe that it IS helpful to us all — if the teachings of Islam can be EXPOSED for what they truly are.

The Muslim extremists pick and choose sections of the Qur’an to believe in just like Christians pick and choose sections of the Bible to believe in.

I believe that people that “pick and choose sections of the Qur’an to believe in” are not good Muslims. And yes, I believe that people that “pick and choose sections of the Bible to believe in” are not good Christians, as well. Don’t stop there. People that “pick and choose portions of the Talmud to believe in” are not very good Jews. And people that “pick and choose portions of the Communist Manifesto and its theory of dialectical materialism to believe in” are not very good communists.

Furthermore, I would argue that I am not very good at being “stupid and irrational” (your words, not mine) since I am only stupid on rare occasions and usually irrational only when I am trying to get someone to laugh. And there’s a lot people reading these posts that are laughing at both of us right about now.

They AREN’T very good ones — in the sense that they DO NOT rigidly adhere to the teachings of Islam. IMHO, they might as well renounce Islam, because they don’t truly believe in it.

Funny, that’s the opinion of yourself, and the Islamic extremists. I know plenty of Muslims who, believe it or not, aren’t hell-bent on the destruction of the United States.

You’re the type of person who marginalizes “good” Muslims by stating they “really aren’t Muslims at all” or “they might as well give it up;” do you honestly think that’s helpful?

Your argument is so ignorant. It’s like me calling you a horrible Christian (I’m assuming your Christian, here) because you don’t adhere to Christ’s sermon on the hill to give up all your belongings or let someone take your belongings and not care at all. If you don’t believe in this IMHO I think you should just give it up because you aren’t TRULY adhering to the teachings of Christianity.

The Muslim extremists pick and choose sections of the Qur’an to believe in just like Christians pick and choose sections of the Bible to believe in. And calling the people who don’t believe in violent conversion or the abandonment of personal property not “very good” believers is stupid and irrational.

– VOTE
– Support free speach
– Protect human rights
– Support religious freedom
– Support Due Process

Mr Ellison Cannot be seated as a member of congress with out abridging our rights as citizens.

It’s that simple, We need him to say an additional oath of office, and if he wishes to do it without a bible, FINE!

Lee

You’re under the assumption that EVERY single Muslim in the world that follows the teachings of Islam believes in the violent overthrow of the United States. You are simply wrong. The people that say “true” Muslims believe in a violent overthrow are extremists and people like you using their quotes to further a political agenda.

Out of curiosity, do you personally know any Muslims?

One out of every five students at the college that I attended (many years ago now) was Muslim (or at least Arabic). There are currently many Muslims at my place of employment. I eat lunch with them from time-to-time. So yes, I DO know some Muslims here in the U.S. They AREN’T very good ones — in the sense that they DO NOT rigidly adhere to the teachings of Islam. IMHO, they might as well renounce Islam, because they don’t truly believe in it. My point is that there are about 10-15% of Muslims worldwide that TRULY adhere to the teachings of Islam. They are the individuals that want to kill all Jews and Christians. You can try to tell me that that the other 85-90% are Muslim as well, but I’m not buying it. That other 85-90% can not even tell you what their religion teaches and most of them have never read the Koran. (Most can not read Arabic.) Now are you beginning to see “where I am coming from”?

Muslims should not be permitted to hold office here

The ignorance is building and building and reaching critical mass.

You’re under the assumption that EVERY single Muslim in the world that follows the teachings of Islam believes in the violent overthrow of the United States. You are simply wrong. The people that say “true” Muslims believe in a violent overthrow are extremists and people like you using their quotes to further a political agenda.

Out of curiosity, do you personally know any Muslims?

.

It sounds like some people here are willing to amend the Constitution simply to add that “no religious test shall be required (expect for Muslims).”

Give me a break.

Nonfactor on December 13, 2006 at 4:51 PM

Okay. So I’ll try again. This has nothing to do with a “religious test.” Rigid adherence to Islamic law MEANS that a Muslim MUST advocate violent overthrow of the United States government. This is because, unlike Christians, “true” Muslims MUST refuse to recognize ANY authority except Allah and his prophet Mohammed. I don’t know how it could be any more clear. Muslims should not be permitted to hold office here, not “because of their religion,” but because their stance on who they recognize as authority makes it impossible for them to uphold the constitution of the United States.

Give me a break.

In 1943, we would never have allowed a member of Congress to take their oath on “Mein Kampf,” or someone in the 1950s to swear allegiance to the “Communist Manifesto.”

Because they had balls (bleep!) back then. This current generation has been neutered by political correctness among other things.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!
At least this current generation didn’t segregate the schools or make bathrooms for “coloreds” only. Good job there!!

Rep. Ellison is an American. Give him the benefit of the doubt.

I was really annoyed when he refused to meet the President.

This current generation has been neutered by political correctness among other things.

jman on December 13, 2006 at 1:45 PM

And soy milk!

Is Political Christianity inconsistent with the constitution?
Theworldisnotenough on December 13, 2006 at 2:47 PM

The answer to this question is easy and found here:
1 Peter 2:13-14 (New International Version)

13Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

If ANYONE can show me anything in the quran/sharia law that even comes close to this, I’d sure like to see it.

Judge Roy Moore (that Judge Roy Moore) believes that because the Quran dictates that Islamic law supercedes any secular system of laws, Democrat Keith Ellison (a Sunni Muslim from Minnesota elected to Congress last month) should not be seated in office…

How about some Tancredo news?

What he’s really asking is whether Muslims who take their faith seriously can, in good conscience, sincerely agree to uphold the religious clauses of the First Amendment. Which is not a little ironic.

Ironic? Is Political Christianity inconsistent with the constitution? (please save the usual Libertarian diatribe)

Is not the question of Sharia and the constitution a legitimate one?

Is Ellison not to be questioned?

It is the dominant belief that ALL Muslims are to jihad for Sharia whereever and whenever they can, you know this Allah. Catholics were properly assimilated and Protestanized so to shall the Muslims.

A larger issue that Robert Spencer brings up is that Wahhabism, Salafism, Qutbism(sp?) and the like have never been discredited in the same way Marxism, and Shintoism were. That makes me leary of Muslims that are not overtly in support of our Constitution instead of Sharia. But I’m just overreacting…

How can someone who follows Islam swear to uphold the Constitution? Islam is not just a religion, but a system of law, which according to their own writings, take precedence over other law.

They are essentially imcompatable…
Romeo13 on December 13, 2006 at 1:54 PM

Exactly. The two are mutually exclusive. It is impossible to both defend the constitution of the United States AND rigidly adhere to Islam. This has NOTHING to do with a “religious test.” We have to remeber that Islam is NOT “just a religion.” It is a political system that is hostile to every principle set forth within the constitution of the United States. It is illegal to advocate or incite violent overthrow of the United States government. Yet that is PRECISELY what Islam advocates. Case closed. This guy has got NO BUSINESS taking office here. As others have predicted in this thread, we can either deal with it now, or we can deal with it later. But you can bet your bippy that if we deal with it later, it will be FAR more costly, and FAR more unpleasant.

No religious test shall be required, yes, but the forefathers did not seem to be very aware of the theo-political phenomenon of Islam.

Given the broad wording of the first amendment, I think the founders were willing to give religion the benefit of the doubt in most cases. Perhaps they didn’t see the specific issues related to Islam, but I believe unless Ellison has explicitly supported another government or given aid and comfort to the enemy, he should be given his seat because overturning the will of those who voted for him would set a terrible legal precedent.

My major problem with Moore’s arguments in general is his constant refrain equating constitutional law with Judeo-Christian belief. I respect his intent – we should fight attempts to remove all religious voices from public life – but think he takes it too far in assuming that the only legitimate voices allowed are those who agree with one particular religion.