First Muslim in Congress to use Thomas Jefferson's quran

Yes, I do realize that, at least nominally, but was it their religion or their occupation that was problematic to Jefferson? I maintain it was their piracy not their Mohammedanism (as it was then termed) that concerned him.

 

I heard on the news today that two members of Congress are Buddhists. It was not said what they will use, if anything, for their photo op.

 

You are 100% correct, Daisy.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/01/04/ellison_uses_thomas_jeffersons_quran/

His mother was so proud of him. As was CAIR.

Found those links for me yet? Didn't think so.

I have.

I would say both, but the Jefferson Paper archives is huge, there are more references to Jefferson and Tripoli within them. This one sums up Jefferson's opinion on organized religion:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj090207))

...fufilling his promise to explain to Benjamin Rush his actual views on the subject.

"Neo-con" to me is a Cold War term used to describe a former liberal who advocated an aggressive foreign policy. By that definition, Jefferson was no neo-con, just a Christian.

But the way the term is mistakenly used these days - to describe a pro-nation building conservative, he sure was.

 

Could we get you reply to this please LE - would you have a religious test imposed?

 

There right hand on a teat from a sacred cow. :smilewinkgrin:

 

How Bartonish!

 

If I am not mistaken, Buddhists don't have sacred cows. Hindu's do.

 

^ As relevant and informative as ever. Still waiting.....

CAIR, heh, my favourite international terrorism front group.

You told me Ellison was a poser, sure is. He swore on the Koran with his dirty hand.

http://www.bahagia.btinternet.co.uk/customs.html

Visual proof of him doing just that:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1762746/posts

That's beyond haram. He needs to be punished for this desceration.

Aslim Taslam (أسلم تسلم)

 

He wasn't taking an oath - he was posing for a photograph. He took the oath in the House with all the rest.

 

There's two ceremonies, the private one's optional. The Koran is NEVER to be touched with the left hand, for any reason.

Link's sympathetic to him:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/celebrate-ellisons-oath-_b_37790.html

More than a photo-op to him, from an al-CNN interview:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/21/sitroom.02.html

"The American way"? NooB.

He's more "Nation of Islam" than Islam, thought so.

 

I agree with his view of the American way. The private ceremony allows each individual to demonstrate his or her own faith of lack of it. I agree that he shows the religious diversity and freedom of religion envisioned by our brilliant founding fathers.

That IS the American way. Not some kind of forced adherence to tradition.

 

Roger

I find it difficult to believe that the founding fathers had fought to rid the country of religious tyrrany in the hopes that islam would be accepted here in the USA.

In their era, the invading muslims had finally been driven out of Europe, and the mohmadens then became busy pirating American ships upon the ocean. I doubt that Our Founding Fathers were sympathetic to the mohomadens. And I know my family members would not have been sympathetic.

Wayne

 

Isn't the acceptable manner of punishment the dismemberment of the right hand?

 

I find it difficult to believe that these men were so ignorant and short-sighted that they did not mean religious liberty when they said it. They knew they dangers of Islam as well as we do and they STILL saw the need to recognise personal freedom. If we start violating sacrosanct aspects of or freedom the terrorists will indeed have won! They will have made America less than America.

We MUST defend our liberties!

 

Roger

I do not believe that submission to such a violent and aggressive religion is what they expected us to do. I just cannot see that.

I do see where they provided Catholics with a state to worhsip in. Don't I remember that they made provisions for Jews? I know that they made provisions for Spaniards (we used spanish coin for commerce for a brief time). But, the reputation of islam during that era would not have been favorable. And I do ot remember the early fathers making provision for the muslim.

I believe that expressing my religious belief that islam is evil would have been expected under the First Ammendment.

And since my Christian brethren in occupied countries (From Israel north and Egypt west and Iraq east) where Christians were virtually driven out by the war loving muslims and cannot speak for themselves without fear of being murdered - I do not mind practicing my religious freedom of expression.

And that is the liberty that I KNOW my family has fought for.

 

No one would EVER question anyone's right to religious expression. That is not the issue here.

The issue is the questioning of one of the foundations of the nation - the right to worship according to your own dictates.

If that falls, our nation goes with it.