Keith Ellison to swear oath of office on Thomas Jefferson’s Koran
posted at 12:19 pm on January 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’m no fan of Ellison, but I know a brilliant political stroke when I see one.
We’ve learned that the new congressman — in a savvy bit of political symbolism — will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.
“He wanted to use a Koran that was special,” said Mark Dimunation, chief of the rare book and special collections division at the Library of Congress, who was contacted by the Minnesota Dem early in December. Dimunation, who grew up in Ellison’s 5th District, was happy to help.
Jefferson’s copy is an English translation by George Sale published in the 1750s; it survived the 1851 fire that destroyed most of Jefferson’s collection and has his customary initialing on the pages.
How brilliant?
One person unlikely to be swayed by the book’s illustrious history is [Rep. Virgil] Goode, who released a letter two weeks ago objecting to Ellison’s use of the Koran…
Goode, who represents Jefferson’s birthplace of Albemarle County, had no comment yesterday.
Maybe there’s a compromise at work here. As I understand it, the Koran isn’t really the Koran unless it’s in Arabic. To wit: “The Prophet Muhammad inwardly heard the Arabic verses of the Koran. He did not simply encounter the Divine Meaning and compose his own words to express it. Therefore, no translation of the Arabic Koran into any language can be the Holy Koran, but is simply a human interpretation, which may be inspired but does not exist on the sublime level of revelation.” So, technically, he’s not swearing on the Koran. Happy now, Dennis Prager?
No, huh?
Somewhere between Dan Riehl and Rick Moran lies the truth.
Update: Reader “Verbal Abuse” reminds us that Jefferson’s gloss on the Koran might not be the same as Ellison’s. Not only did he send the U.S. Navy to confront the Barbary pirates, but, as Bill Bennett quotes him, he once had a memorable encounter with an Arab ambassador:
When he served as America’s minister to France in the mid-1780s, Jefferson had once confronted an Arab diplomat, demanding to know by what right his country attacked Americans in the Mediterranean:
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
That was a reverse “There they go again” moment for Mr. Goode. Move on friend…just imagine he is a quaker.
tomas on January 3, 2007 at 12:25 PM
I am so sick of this grandstanding. Why is this being covered from any other angle than Ellison is an attention whore?
Will somebody with a national voice please put this and CAIR in context and give them the contempt they deserve.
America1st on January 3, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Like I said before AP, you just don’t get it. Neither does Ellison. BTW, deep thinkers know that this is not a brilliant political move.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Amen to that. We may already have a winner for smooth move of the year. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to take your hat off. It’s downright Rovian.
Hmmmmm…Rovian. I question the timing.
Pablo on January 3, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Dang. That is clever.
You’ve got to give the guy credit.
Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Since Ellison has opened the gates on this one, lets take a look at what Jefferson had to say about the Muslim faith and its practitioners.
Looks like Jefferson most likely would have agreed with Virgil Goode. To say the man was ahead of his times would be an understatement. He was sounding the alarm centuries ago. But go ahead Congressman, swear your oath on a book that contributed nothing, and in fact is the antithesis of the system of government which it will be your charge to uphold…it makes perfect sense.
Verbal Abuse on January 3, 2007 at 12:35 PM
EXCELLENT…must be using Clinton’s spin machine already.
seejanemom on January 3, 2007 at 12:37 PM
It is if you’re Ellison, which, um, he is. The people who just elected him will eat this up, and he’s just managed to silence his detractors which his new constituents will love even more. How does this do anything but help him?
Pablo on January 3, 2007 at 12:38 PM
AP, if you keep spinning this story in favor of Ellison, you’re as bad as the MSM. I don’t think he would have bothered if Dennis Prager hadn’t made an issue of his oath-taking. Still, this “brilliant move” doesn’t deal with the key issue: the Bible as the source of our values.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Some people just won’t be happy unless it’s Reagan’s Koran.
frankj on January 3, 2007 at 12:40 PM
I’d settle for Chuck Norris’ Koran.
Pablo on January 3, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Keep insulting and condescending to me, Andy. See where it gets you.
Allahpundit on January 3, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Me, I’d use Vicente Fox’s Koran.
And I’d take the oath in Spanish.
Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 12:43 PM
So Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the Koran. So what??? I read the Koranic verses on the internet, saves me from bringing filth into my home. Does that make me a supporter of Islamic behavior???
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Maybe he should use Putin’s Koran, but, in Russia, Koran swears on you!
frankj on January 3, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Would love to find out that Jefferson used his Koran pages as snot rags.
infidel4life on January 3, 2007 at 12:47 PM
That’s a good idea. You just know Putin’s Koran has gone some mojo, because the guy’s got a good soul.
It’s in the eyes.
Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Meant to say “got some mojo,” not “gone.”
Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 12:48 PM
If a Nazi was elected to Congress, would swearing him in on a copy of “Mein Kampf” borrowed from FDR’s library make it OK? Discuss among yourselves.
Ellison is using Jefferson’s Koran dishonestly to imply Jefferson’s endorsement. Obviously, Jefferson sought to understand the Muslim enemy making war in the name of Allah on American shipping off the coast of Tripoli. The argument presented in the original article that swearing a Muslim Congressman in on a Koran demonstrates American religious tolerance falls flat when the Koran stands for religious intolerance and Muslims are currently waging a world wide war against other religions.
How can a Muslim be loyal to America when he professes a faith that identifies America as the Great Satan, maintains a doctrine of the destruction of America, incorporates that doctrine into its holiest rituals, preaches the destruction of America in its mosques around the world, and makes good on its threats?
Tantor on January 3, 2007 at 12:51 PM
I think this is a risky move. He shouldn’t be focusing attention on Thomas Jefferson – the Barbary Pirates defeat will surface and others will see that today’s events are not new and have been going along for a long time. And it is a slap in the face of Sen Goode. This can backfire big.
CrimsonFisted on January 3, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Exactly, Tantor, a creed that demands that all Americans bow before it or die has no place in the hallowed halls of our government, to me this is a travesty plain and simple.
bbz123 on January 3, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Am I satisfied? Maybe. My issue with Islam is the political nature of the religion, it incompatability with the constitution, and assimilation. Catholicism has been properly protestanized via assimilative pressure, Islam in this country must face those same forces. This seems like a step in the right direction.
Exit question:
Can Ellison produce any instances of Thomas Jefferson quoting his copy of the Koran, or was the Koran merely part of his collection rather than something he actually reflected on and used in his daily life?
I know political grandstanding when I see it, but a step even if a small one in the right direction. Maybe Michelle can out CAIR for what it really is then link it to Ellison forcing him to cut his ties to the organazation. That being just another small step in the right direction.
Theworldisnotenough on January 3, 2007 at 12:57 PM
HEH!
Theworldisnotenough on January 3, 2007 at 12:58 PM
I think this is a first for me: I have to disagree with AP and Pablo on the same post.
Pablo, I certainly don’t think this will silence many of his detractors, certainly not Prager or Goode. At least I don’t think so.
And I love that he has abandoned the principled position of religious freedom** in favor of sticking it to the man. This would seem to support the argument that he’s full of spit and is just an antagonist (**if the tenet is true that it is only a Koran in Arabic, then he has caved and has only proved Prager right).
Jaibones on January 3, 2007 at 12:59 PM
One big problem I have in this whole presentation is the tenet in the Koran that tells of it being OK to lie to infidels , in order to take them by surprise later.
bbz123 on January 3, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Condescending, maybe. But insulting AP? All he said was that you didn’t ‘get it’.
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 1:03 PM
“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of the prophet, that it was written in their koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their [islams] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners….”
And in the SnarkFest,we have a very unusual four way tie:
- Maybe he should use Putin’s Koran, but, in Russia, Koran swears on you!
- Me, I’d use Vicente Fox’s Koran. And I’d take the oath in Spanish…
- Some people just won’t be happy unless it’s Reagan’s Koran.
- I’d settle for Chuck Norris’s Koran.
Jaibones on January 3, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Anyone actually read the Koran? I thought you had to read this other stuff (hadith) with it to make any sense of it, and Muslims disagree on which hadith are true.
frankj on January 3, 2007 at 1:08 PM
So, does mean Ellison is a liberal muslim?
ricer1 on January 3, 2007 at 1:13 PM
When all is said and done, the guy won the election. Let him swear on Jefferson’s Koran if he wants to. Next term, let’s vote the man out.
Chris L. on January 3, 2007 at 1:13 PM
As long as we get to read some of the other passages out of the Koran to use as context.
The quesstion needs to be asked does Ellison want to uphold Sharia law ?
If so then there is no place for him in congress. As it violates the US constitution.
The Koran and the US constitution are incompatible on these issues. Ellison must make a rejection of Sharia law for me to give him a pass on this.
William Amos on January 3, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Interesting choice of Korans since Jefferson sent the military to Muslim lands to make war against them for the sake of US commerce. Good thing oil wasn’t a big commodity at the time or Democrats would have to disown him.
Perchant on January 3, 2007 at 1:18 PM
So, he’s swearing in on a Founding Father’s Koran. Kind of genius. Got to give the guy credit.
amerpundit on January 3, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Islamophobic a wee bit are we? I would hope that you would ‘vote the man out’ on anything other than what his religion is.
blogRot on January 3, 2007 at 1:21 PM
“So, does mean Ellison is a liberal muslim?”
Ellison will portray himself as whatever islam tells him to. There’s no room for a muslim in American politics with islams history.
darwin on January 3, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Virgil Goode is quite famous in Virginia as tobacco’s mouthpiece. He once spoke out on a smoking ban in hospitals, stating he was concerned his mother would be denied the “one last pleasure” of smoking a cigarette on her death bed.
Well when you put it that way…
If ya got em, smoke em Virgil!!!!
honora on January 3, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Not exactly. Jefferson DID initiate a war with the barbary coast pirates. But ultimately, a monetary settlement was negotiated and approved by Jefferson’s administration (a payoff/extortion/bribe for the pirates was agreed upon in order to secure the safety American shipping interests in the Mediterranean). Furthermore, the efforts of U.S. marines in Tripoli to subdue the Muslims by force was abandoned and the sacrifices of those soldiers may have, to some extent, been in vain.
I don’t have all the historical facts, but the aforementioned outcome may be one of the reasons that Theodore Roosevelt didn’t have very many good things to say about President Jefferson.
CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 1:22 PM
I once again bring up my stance. If the guy’s holiest book, on which he is swearing, is the Koran, let him do it. Why have him swear in on a book (the Bible), to protect the Constitution of the United States, if he doesn’t consider it holy? Then his word wouldn’t be worth anything. If the guy WANTS to swear in on a book he considers holy to protect the Constitution, I would figure he is pretty dedicated to doing so.
amerpundit on January 3, 2007 at 1:22 PM
If the person who gave him that Koran were to tell him, oh by the way Tom, in 200 or so years someone is going to swear their oath of office on this, I wonder if he would have accepted it.
I bet his corpse is doing about 60 rpm about now.
Verbal Abuse on January 3, 2007 at 1:23 PM
I would think you are big enough to take a little difference of opinion. But if not, then I guess you’ll ban me. Fine, that’s your decision. But I stand by what I said.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 1:23 PM
There’s no room for not allowing a Muslim (or anybody else) in American politics. If they can get elected, then a plurality of their constituents must agree with their thoughts/views. I personally wouldn’t have voted for the guy, but because of his politics, NOT because of his religion.
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 1:24 PM
If the guy WANTS to swear in on a book he considers holy to protect the Constitution, I would figure he is pretty dedicated to doing so.
He is dedicated to islam. Islam is dedicated to global domination with everyone in it either praising allah or dead. There are no inbetweens.
darwin on January 3, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Let me just say that as a Bible believing christian, I do have a small bit of hesitancy over letting someone get sworn into office with their hand over a Koran.
However what I feel more strongly is that if that same person was putting their hand on the Bible then anything they swore to wouldn’t mean anything to them. The Bible isn’t a sacred text to that person so why should swearing on it have any kind of effect on how strongly they hold that oath?
Personally I know if I was told to swear an oath on the Koran I’d tell the person they were nuts and there’s no way I’m doing it. So why shouldn’t a muslim have the same reaction to swearing on the Bible?
Benaiah on January 3, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Darwin, you still cannot discriminate against Ellison just because he wants to swear in on a Koran, or because
That’s what freedom of religion is all about. If you start trying to exclude people because of their faith in Islam, then you’re starting down a path that could ultimately lead to one religion only being allowed.
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Here’s a newflash: His religion IS his politics. If you read the Koran, you’d understand that it makes no distinction between “church and state”. Sharia law throughout the land is the goal in the Koran. It’s a failed “fascist” doctrine for complete state control.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 1:31 PM
There’s no room for not allowing a Muslim (or anybody else) in American politics.
Do you think the America of common sense some years back would have allowed a Nazi to run for political office during WWII? We may have put a damper on terrorist plots in the US recently but has that stopped the spread of islam?
I’m just one person with an opinion. Changing the “hearts and minds” ain’t gonna happen. They will use our laws, traditions, generosity and mindless political correctness against us as they have in Europe.
darwin on January 3, 2007 at 1:33 PM
There is no Koran or Bible or fill in this space involved in the actual swearing-in ceremony, which is a large event with all new congresspeople taking the oath (?) at once.
This is all about the photo op each individual person will have for his home town newspaper. Making it all the more inconsequential. Whatever.
honora on January 3, 2007 at 1:34 PM
I hate to play devils advocate, because I’ve got my own misgivings about Islam. But not EVERYBODY who’s a Muslim believes in world domination, and I don’t think that every one is fighting to overthrow every government they can find. So until you’re able to conclusively prove that any individual person is working to overthrow the government, it’s against the Constitution to discriminate them. Do you know for a FACT that Mr. Ellison wants Sharia law?
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 1:34 PM
“That’s what freedom of religion is all about. If you start trying to exclude people because of their faith in Islam, then you’re starting down a path that could ultimately lead to one religion only being allowed.”
Please exercise that gray matter that God gave you. If islam were truly a “religion of peace”, I wouldn’t give a damn and we wouldn’t be having these discussions. It’s not, and I’m glad we are. If we continue to allow muslims into politics how long until these discussions will be banned?
darwin on January 3, 2007 at 1:36 PM
The U.S., more than any other country, is a nation of freedom. So you’re absolutely correct; any enemy with any brains at all will try to work within our system to defeat us. The only option is to change our Constitution/laws… something I wouldn’t be willing to do.
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 1:37 PM
That is the question I want Ellison to answer Dalewait. Does he believe in Sharia law ?
If the answer is no and he states it in public then I have no problems with him.
If he states the Koran is above the US Constitution and that Sharia is acceptible then I have alot of problems with him.
William Amos on January 3, 2007 at 1:37 PM
I never said that Islam was a ‘religion of peace’. As I said above, I have my own misgivings about Islam. But, and this is a huge but, under what law would you keep Mr. Ellison from swearing in on a Koran? Or, as Honora put it, using the Koran in his photo-op?
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 1:38 PM
You’re quite correctd William. If Mr. Ellison would state that Sharia law is above the Constitution, then I’d imagine that would be grounds for keeping him from taking office. Until he says that though, there’s no law to stop him.
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 1:40 PM
To my knowledge neither does the Bible. He is swearing an allegiance to the constitution not the Koran, just as elected representatives do when they swear on a Bible.
The constitution defines separation of church and state – hence they are both swearing to their faith they will enforce that as well as the rest of the constitution – or at least that is what the ceremony represents.
Bradky on January 3, 2007 at 1:43 PM
If Ellison is a believing muslim, then, yes, Sharia Law is first and foremost. You cannot be a devout muslim, like he claims to be, and not believe in Sharia Law for EVERYONE.
Everything I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11/01.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Again then he needs to be asked that because the KORAN states that Sharia law is the parimount law of Islam over all others.
So if he is swearing on the Koran then he is swearing that Sharia law is above the US Constitution.
Hence my problems with him using the Koran. It states that Sharia law is the only law allowed.
William Amos on January 3, 2007 at 1:44 PM
But not EVERYBODY who’s a Muslim believes in world domination.
Hey look, if even a handful of the imaginary “moderate” muslims started speaking out publically against what’s been happening across the world my judgement might be tempered. But I don’t see ANY. These bastards make trouble wherever they are. Name me ONE place where the muslim population doesn’t cause trouble, or isn’t demanding more and more of the local government, or isn’t seeking to gain access to the local or national government … ONE PLACE where they aren’t spreading their cult of death and demand we respect islam.
You must be able to see it … wherever they go they demand respect for islam. They have no respect for the laws and traditions of their host nations. They fully intend to make those host nations muslim.
darwin on January 3, 2007 at 1:45 PM
BTW some tenants of Sharia law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Laws_and_practices_under_Sharia
[edit] Marriage laws
The Muslim man who is not currently a fornicator can only marry a Muslim woman who is not currently a fornicatress or a chaste woman from the people of the book.
The Muslim fornicator can only marry a Muslim fornicatress.
The number of wives is limited to one. In times where there the population of men is smaller than normal, such as times of war, up to four wives can be taken, but only if they are treated equally and with the consent of the first wife.
The Muslim woman who is not currently a fornicatress can only marry a Muslim man who is not currently a fornicator.
The Muslim fornicatress can only marry a Muslim fornicator.
The woman cannot marry without the consent of her guardian. If she marries, her husband becomes her new guardian.
The guardian may choose a suitable partner for a virgin girl, but the girl is free to contest and has the right to say ‘no’.
The guardian cannot marry the divorced woman or the widow if she didn’t ask to be married.
The number of husbands is limited to one.
“Do not marry unless you give your wife something that is her right.” It is obligatory for a man to give bride wealth (gift)to the woman he marries.[5]
He is also not allowed to intercourse in front of his sons if they are present in the room.
[edit] Divorce laws
A woman who wishes to be divorced needs the consent of her husband. If he consents she does not have to pay back the bridewealth.[citation needed]
A man who divorces a Post-adolescent or pre-menopausal women must wait three months before divorcing her to ensure that she is not pregnant.[citation needed]
Under certain circumstances (abuse, for instance), the wife may ask a judge to separate the couple.
If a man divorces his wife three times, he can no longer marry her again unless she marries another man and then divorces him.[citation needed]
These are guidelines; Islamic law on divorce is different depending on the school of thought.[6]
[edit] The penalty for theft
In accordance with the Qur’an and several hadith, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet, depending on the number of times it was committed and depending on the item of theft.[5][6]
[edit] The penalty for adultery
Main article: Stoning to Death in Islam
In accordance with hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery.[7] For unmarried men and women, the punishment prescribed in the Qur’an and hadith is 100 lashes.[8]
[edit] The role of women under Sharia
Main article: women in Islam
In terms of religious obligations, such as the daily prayers, payment of Zakat, observance of the Ramadan fast and pilgrimage, women are treated no differently from men. There are, however, some exceptions made in the case of prayers and fasting. Women are not obliged to fast during menstruation, pregnancy, for forty days after childbirth or while nursing if there could be any threat to her health or her baby’s.
William Amos on January 3, 2007 at 1:47 PM
See Matthew 22:21 for Christians. Jews have always believed that separation is required. See the Talmud. So, yes the Bible does.
Secondly, he is swearing to “preserve, protect and defend” the U.S. Constitition. Not allegiance to it.
Wanna tell me where the Constitution defines separation of church and state??? Because you’re wrong about that.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Cute tagline, but not too damn practical in the real world. If all you learn/know about something is from one isolated incident, then you’re not using your gray matter.
Look, Darwin, William, Andy… I understand what you guys are saying. And I agree with some of your thoughts. But nobody has answered me the one question… by what law would you keep Mr. Ellison from serving in Congress (or even swearing-in on a Koran?)
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 1:50 PM
– William Amos
I’m not sure that I can recall any instance where an elected official using a Bible was questioned on whether they could separate some of the teachings from the constitution.
The Bible never says slavery is okay yet until the Civil War every elected official swearing an oath to the constitution with their hand on the bible were at odds with their professed allegiance to the constitution and those of their chosen faith.
Add this controversy to the issue about burning the flag and attempts to ban it as one more thing that doesn’t win over the moderate voter.
Bradky on January 3, 2007 at 1:50 PM
You are on very shaky ground here, indeed. Do I need to remind you that Adolf Hitler was a duely elected official of the German government? Do you think that ALL of the German people even knew what kind of monster he was, or what he planned on doing? Do you think that the electorate believed everything that Hitler said? Or did a lot of the people that voted for Hitler dismiss many of the things that he said as rhetoric? Hilter was the butt of a lot of unflattering political jokes in 1928. That changed shortly thereafter.
Don’t misunderstand. I am not implying that Ellison is comparable to Hitler, or even that he has made similar claims. I am just saying that people don’t always know who that they have voted for.
CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Yes, we’re aware of Sharia law. But when has Mr. Ellison stated that he follows Sharia law? And don’t give me that “cause he’s a Muslim” crap… I’m a Christian, but I don’t go to church every week, I don’t take communion when I should, and I don’t do a thousand other things a ‘good’ Christian should. So, not just that he’s a Muslim… give me some evidence that his beliefs are as you fear.
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Oh, there is no law for this. As it should be. I want him to acknowledge that this country’s culture, values, and traditions must be preserved, protected, and RESPECTED.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Which is why a politician needs to be re-elected every so often. Shaky ground indeed.
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Which he will as part of his swearing-in. And if there’s no law to keep him from swearing in on the Koran, then nothing can be done. If you’re that concerned about this, then go to his next speaking engagement, and when question-time rolls around, ask him point-blank if Sharia supersedes the Constitution.
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 1:57 PM
“..prohibiting the free exercise thereof..” would be the relevant phrase.
honora on January 3, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Yikes!!!! His job is to uphold the laws. Getting into traditions, values etc assumes we as a nation have homogeneous, unconflicting values. And traditions? Do we really need Congress involved in this? How do you envision this happening?
honora on January 3, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Irrelevent, since I will know FOR CERTAIN that on the day that Ellison is sworn-in that he has essentially lied under oath. We impeached Bill Clinton for that, remember? Like Michael Moore says, “All Bill lied about was a blow-job. What’s so bad about that?” Someone needs to tell Michael Moore that lying under oath is a crime. We are about to see Ellison commit a crime. When he is sworn in, he has lied about one of two things. Either he is lying about protecting the constitution of the United States, or he is lying about his devotion to Islam (by swearing on the Koran). The two are mutually exclusive. It doesn’t matter if he lied about the lesser of the two. Suppose that he is lying about his devotion to Islam. He still lied under oath. It’s no different than lying under oath about a blow-job.
CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 2:07 PM
No. Swearing-in using a Koran does not respect this country’s values. Even if he used a koran AND Bible that would be okay. But he won’t. I would like public pressure to change his behavior, not a law.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Shall we ask other politicians if they think the 10 Commandments supercede the Constitution? Good grief, I thought we covered this ground back in 1960.
honora on January 3, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Ellison isn’t swearing and oath to the Koran. He is swearing to protect our Constituton, which leaves no rooom for Sharia law. Our Constituton outlines a form of government, that Sharia law is not. He wants to swear to uphold the Constitution.
I say let him swear in on the Koran. He makes one wrong move regarding the whole Sharia law, Islamic principles situation, vote his a** out, and kill his political career. Even Dems in Congress won’t vote for a Sharia system, because when it comes down to it, they wouldn’t much power under that system.
If I’m wrong, please correct me. I’m no expert on the Sharia system or the Koran.
amerpundit on January 3, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Can someone find the actual oath he has to take?
amerpundit on January 3, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Again, knowing it is likely fruitless: CONGRESSMEN DO NOT SWEAR OR TAkE AN OATH ON A BIBLE OR ANTYHING ELSE. They raise their hand and repeat what the judge says.
honora on January 3, 2007 at 2:10 PM
That statement is seriously flawed. If a people do not have shared values, then they are not a nation. To wit: the U.S. Civil war.
America can ONLY be a nation when our people share the same values.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 2:11 PM
P.O.S.
A nation with no absolutes is turning absolutely nutz.
robman27 on January 3, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Where in the congressional oath of office do members of the House of Representatives swear to uphold America’s values?
Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 2:13 PM
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
honora on January 3, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Ameripundit, here’s the oath linked above:
Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 2:14 PM
You get older but not wiser. The 10 Commandments are in ADDITION to the Constitution. The Constitution does not dictate moral behavior. You should be able to discern the difference.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Blast! Honora had the quicker google-fu.
Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 2:14 PM
One question is what notes Jefferson put in the margins of “his” Koran. This sounds like a job for ROBERT SPENCER”!!!
Given the non-PC attitude of the day, it would be ironic for him to swear on a book that has “this is a devil worshiping cult, and thank Jesus I an a Christian”.
Agrippa2k on January 3, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Is it possible for you to make an argument without insulting people, or is that just how you roll?
Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Wrong. Again. Good grief you are ignorant.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Okay CyberCipher… just how do you know FOR CERTAIN? Because of your assumption that he’s lying about his devotion to Islam? Who the h*ll made you the final arbiter of his beliefs?
Andy,Cyber,Darwin,William… I understand your concerns, but the fact is that you’re basing this on your beliefs about Mr. Ellison’s commitment to and vision of Islam.
And ameripundit, here’s the oath:
Before anybody whines about the “God” part, and how can he mention God when he’s a Muslim… there’s nothing saying that this denotes the Christian God.
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 2:16 PM
It’s a non-issue. The ceremony is FAKE.
They do the real thing in private. STOP making this something, dont give islamofascists any ammo/talking points. The issue of constitution vs. sharia law is a real one, but the koran Jefferson used to learn about the enemy , now used by Ellison is nothing. NOTHING!
shooter on January 3, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Did I insult you?
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Ugh, I’m agreeing with Honora! I’m gonna get voted out of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Club (VRWCC).
I think I need a good cry.
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 2:19 PM
The ‘older but not wiser’ part.
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 2:19 PM
No, but my preference for civility does not depend on whether I am personally affected by another’s boorishness.
Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Thanks Slublog.
The 10 Commandments pertain to a specific religion. Great thing about the US is that you don’t have to believe in that religion to be here, or to run/win office.
amerpundit on January 3, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Nowhere. Lots of values are inherently polarizing. (You value your family life, you value your career. You value your own ethnic heritage, you value diversity. You value justice, you value mercy.) It’s part of what makes life interesting.
Hope you had a nice holiday Slublog. And a healthy and prosperous new year!
honora on January 3, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Isn’t Allah translated to English “God”?
amerpundit on January 3, 2007 at 2:21 PM
My “boorishness” is directed toward an extremely thick-headed ignoramus. Sometimes you have to be cruel to get their attention.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 3, 2007 at 2:22 PM
And your justification just makes you look so much better.
Slublog on January 3, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Did I miss something?
Just because Thomas Jefferson owned an English transalation of the Koran, that means . . . what?
That he was in favor of flying airliners loaded with innocents into skyscrapers at 500 mph?
Labamigo on January 3, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Ooh, ooh, is that me? Or are you talking about Honora? (Pick me, pick me)
Oh, by the way Andy, let me refer you to HA’s Terms of Use:
(emphasis added by me)
dalewalt on January 3, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »