‘First, Roy Moore came for Keith Ellison . . .’


While denying that they have any racist or other xenophobic intent, critics of Minnesota’s U.S. Representative-elect Keith Ellison, like the abominable Dennis Prager, continue to try to gin up reasons why he cannot carry his own scriptures to Congress, why he cannot have the rights that every school child in America has, because the scriptures Ellison carries are Islamic.

Except for Roy Moore, the Xian Nationalist, unreconstructed Christian Reconstructionist, and Christian Dominionist who probably got the memorandum about how they aren’t supposed to talk about it in public, but who lets it fly anyway.

Representing the Great Booboisie, Roy Moore says Ellison should not be seated in Congress at all.

Alabama’s voters were wise to reject Roy Moore as governor, after Moore burned the people so badly when they trusted him to be chief justice of the state’s supreme court, and he instead turned the court into a circus of religious pomposity and disregard for the laws of religious freedom. Another History Blog Fisks the manifold, manifest errors Moore makes.

I cannot escape the feeling that Moore is speaking for most Reconstructionists and Dominionists, who claim they wish to take power with the ballot box, but who in their writings are quite clear about how they plan to exercise the power to establish a reign of terror based on odd interpretations of Christian scripture.

And so we come to the saddest and highest irony of all: Moore claims Ellison should not be seated because, according to Moore, no branch of Islam sufficiently backs the U.S. Constitution and the separation of church and state. Of course, Moore himself rails against the separation of church and state at every opportunity. Is Moore saying that he would not take public office himself?

If one were to think that, one would be excusing Moore’s grand, public hypocrisy.

Moore goes after the qualifications for office of Keith Ellison today, because Ellison is Muslim. Who will Roy Moore claim is unqualified tomorrow? Jews? Mormons? Catholics? Baptists who disagree with him? Episcopalians? Methodists?

When Keith Ellison has been sworn in as a Member of Congress, and he raises his right hand while putting his left hand on a copy of the Qur’an, and smiles for his photo with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, every patriotic, Constitution-loving American will cheer.

I predict Roy Moore will scowl. Who knows what Dennis Prager will do.

Updates:

  1. This post was selected for the 29th Carnival of the Liberals, which is running now over at Daylight Atheism.  Go check out the other posts.
  2. Wonderful news:  Rep. Ellison found a wonderful and original way to tweak the Roy Moores and Dennis Pragers, and especially the Virgil Goodes of the world:  Ellison asked the Library of Congress to bring to his swearing-in the copy of the translation of the Qur’an originally purchased by Thomas Jefferson.  I blogged about it, with links, here.  Go see.
About these ads

9 Responses to ‘First, Roy Moore came for Keith Ellison . . .’

  1. robin says:

    Ed,

    Your comment that, “My judgment of Islam is too harsh” is somewhat confusing, and rather shallow … in fact, there little in my post that conveys my own personal “judgements” about this; all that I have presented are the facts themselves – the very history of the Islamic movement speaks for itself; and the very tenents of the belief clearly demand that anyone truely commited (“deemed”) to the movement be fully engaged in it’s ultimate goals.

    Mine are not judgements … moreso I’ve only presented what my researching the subject has found. If there’s something fualty with what I’ve found, please set the record straight, point out the specific points that you can refute? Now, concerning your many ofher comments/question, to be honest, I find them rather random and without much substance (And that, by the way, is what’s called a judgement!).

    For instance, you ask me, “If I have seriously studied the Old Testament? I have, for a few years now; and although my grasp of the Hebrew language has a long ways to go, the depth of my historical research is nothing to be sneered at. As for Christian Reconstructionists and/or a purely secular Congress, I haven’t much interest eithe way, just as long as they truely represent the American people, and protect our interests in common (for the common good). You also ask, “if I’ve any complaint about Rep. Ellison, and his significant record of public service?” I dont live in Minnesota (but have family there), but I’ve always found Minnesotans, as a whole, to be very cultured and fair minded – and it was they who elected Representative Ellison, so I have to think he must have a lot going for him! However, before posting I did research his public/political past and found a number of things that I didn’t care for … but then, that could most likely be said of any politician (or of anyone, for that matter!). As for Representative Goode, he’s outspoken. And for this, at least, I have to give him credit, otherwise I wouldn’t have undertaken my subsequent Islamic research. And yes, the Civil Rights Act does prevent us from discriminating in employment on the basis of religion; believe the Constitution has some protections in it as well, so I’m not sure just where your comments about this were suppose to convey?

    Again, your comment that my “judgement” of Islam is too harsh, coupled with your other rather random statements, only indicates that you should go back and re-read my earlier post. There are historical facts presented; there are direct quotes from the Qu’ran; and there is a rather straight forward analysis of Islamic concepts by Abd El Schafi … What there wasn’t, in my post, was any outright “judgement” of Representative Ellison, although I must admit my doubts about the man were obvious. Not so much because he is of any particular religion, but more so because he is, by his own accouts, a deemed follower of a “movement” that, by definition, advocates the overthrow of all governments that aren’t Islamic!

    Crooked, corrupt, unsavory, self-serving politicians aplenty; dont like them anymore than you, but they come and go, and the Country gets over then and gets on with our business; however, when we start electing Representatives that hold with anyone of the above mentioned verses from the Qu’ran … Do you really think it wise of us to just (as you say), “Sit back and watch what happens!?” Frankly, I think this is fuzzy, shallow thinking on your part! Rather, we should boldly and very publicly note such people, and keep a close eye on them … that would be the wise and prudent thing to do.

    Like

  2. Ed Darrell says:

    Robin, we have Christian Reconstructionists in Congress — were we to fisk their scriptures and beliefs in the same fashion as you analyze Islam, we’d have to send most of them off for a stay at Guantanamo Bay.

    Holding all people of faith to the more peaceful aims of their claimed religion is a high duty for all of us — and it’s not just Moslems we need to worry about. On the whole, I think your judgment of Islam is too harsh, and I wonder whether you have seriously studied the Old Testament, looking for the same danger signs there that you see in Islam. As Pat Robertson and D. James Kennedy keep telling us, Christians, too, are ‘fighting for control of the world.’ Incidentally, you’re making a good case for secular government.

    When you include the Reconstructionists and their call for a return to a death penalty for children for being unruly, I’ll put your concerns in the “fair analysis” category.

    Have you any complaint about Rep. Ellison? He has a significant record of public service now, having served in the Minnesota legislature earlier. If you have no such complaints, I’d say sit back and watch what happens. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents us from discriminating in employment on the basis of religion — we might do well to consider that such a principle should be applied by voters to Members of Congress who represent other districts other than their own.

    Have you checked out Rep. Virgil Goode, by the way? Is there any reason we cannot apply all your fears to Rep. Goode and his beliefs? What about Roy Moore? His office told me, back in 1999, that he has no use for the First Amendment. Should we breathe a sigh of relief that he’s no longer in office? Should we call for censorship of his columns — with all the irony that such a call would entail?

    Like

  3. robin says:

    When Representative-elect Keith Ellison responded to Wolf Blitzer’s question (on CNN) concerning Representative Virgil Goode’s negative comments, with the statement, “I think he has a lot to learn about Islam!” … I, too, realized I needed to
    Learn more about Islam:

    It was Prophet Muhammad who said, “Whoever sees an abomination must straighten it with his hands.” Saddam Hussein repeated and relied upon this saying in his attack on Kuwait’s ruling family. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt depended upon this saying when they killed Anwar El Sadat. We must never imagine that such Muslims are being unnecessarily wicked …They are simply being faithful to their religion!

    From the President, to most religious leaders, to the average talk radio program, we are being told that Islam is a peaceful religion. It is said that bin Laden and the Taliban only represent an extremely radical Muslim fringe, which is not representative of true Islam.

    THIS IS NOT TRUE!

    First of all, “Islam” means submission, not peace. The Arabic word, “islâm” is submission; from; “aslama”- to surrender, resign oneself; from the Syriac, “aðlem” – to surrender; from the stem “ðlem”- to be complete.

    This does not imply voluntary submission but includes a forced submission where the subjects will not comply. Historically Islam is not known for its peace movements, but for a uniquely Arab word, “jihad,” which means an offensive war intended to lead to the conversion of the infidel to Islam, or to his annihilation!

    Islam in the Arabic language and in the Qa’ran/Koran means total submission and obedience. However, the original meaning of “Islam” in the Arabic language is the acceptance of a view or a condition which was not previously accepted, that is the readiness of a person to take orders from god and to follow them. “Muslim” is a word taken from the word Islam, and applies to that person, who is ready to take orders from god and follow him without question.

    “Do they seek a deen other than the deen of Allah and to him all what is in the skies and in the earth have submitted willingly or forcefully and to Him they shall return. [Qur’an 3:83]”

    The word “Islam” was used in the Qur’an as a symbol for the word “deen,” revealed by the Prophet Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad stated that his teachings contain the teachings of all the previous prophets, and all divine commandments. When a person professes the belief in the truthfulness of Prophet Muhammad, and pledges to follow his message, he, in fact, stating his readiness to obey the orders of god unconditionally.

    From the Koran/Qur’an (“An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran with Full Arabic Text,” A. Yusuf Ali), “The deen [religion] before Allah is Islam. [Qur’an 3:19]. Whosoever seeks, other than Islam, a deen, it will not be accepted from him and he, in the Hereafter, is among the losers. [Qur’an 3:85].”

    The concept of “deen” involves four principles: 1) Subjugation, authority, and ruling; 2) Obedience and submission due to subjugation; 3) The method and the habit; and 4) Punishment, reward and judgment. Therefore, “deen” implies a comprehensive system of life that is composed of four parts: 1) The ruler ship and the authority belong to Allah only; 2) The obedience and submission are to Allah; 3) The comprehensive system (intellectual and practical) is established by this authority; and 4) The reward given by this authority (Allah) to those who followed the system and submitted to him and the punishment inflicted upon those who rebel against it and disobey it. Prophet Muhammad said: “Every human being is born in a state of pure nature; but through the influence of his parents, he may become non-Muslim.” Islam is a “divine” system, and with it Allah sealed all other religions, and made it a comprehensive system dealing with all aspects of human life (belief, intellectual, moral, and practical). This system is based on total submission to Allah alone, purifying worship to him only, and following the traditions (sunnah) of Prophet Muhammad.

    Therefore, when you hear people saying that Islam is a peaceful religion, know rather, that Islam is fighting a holy war for control of the world! That war was begun by Prophet Mohammed himself in the seventh century, and is still being carried on today by his followers through terrorism. These terrorists are not radicals or extremists, as the media continually labels them. Rather, these are Islamic fundamentalists who are true to their religion and the teachings of the Qu’ran, and who are following faithfully in the footsteps of the Prophet, Mohammed.

    As Abd El Schafi has said in his book (Behind The Veil: Unmasking Islam), “We must never imagine that such Muslims are being unnecessarily wicked. They are simply being faithful to their religion. The fact is never hidden as to what the proper attitude a good Muslim should have towards Christians and Jews. In fact, much of the incitement to violence and war in the whole of the Qu’ran is directed specifically against Jews/Christians who rejected what they felt to be the strange “god” that Prophet Mohammed was trying to preach. Prophet Muhammad and his successors initiated offensive wars against peaceful countries in order to impose Islam by force as well as to seize the abundance of these lands.” So, Islam was imposed upon Syria, Jordan, Palestine (Jerusalem), Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Iran, all of North Africa, some parts of India and China, and later Spain. So, it appears the “radical” fundamentalists are closer to historic Islam than those who profess to be followers of so-called “mainstream” version. Islam has always been, and continues to be a religion (a way of life) spread by force, not through peaceful means or persuasion.

    Islam was planted by Prophet Muhammad with the sword, not a philosophy or ethic of peace. It’s rather astonishing to learn just how cruel and brutal Prophet Muhammad was as he tortured his captives with fire, then killed them and took their wives as bond maids for himself, as well as for his companions. Following his death, these brothers-in-arms then fought each other in relentless, savage wars; competing for authority and out of deeply rooted hatred, Prophet Muhammad’s relatives and closest friends sacrificed and slaughtered each other!

    No wonder we see Moslems, these days, fighting with each other. In fact, these wars and hostilities spring from the very heart of the Islamic teachings, since it calls for the use of force to combat “wrongdoing,” … just as Prophet Muhammad’s relatives did with one another! It was Muhammad who said, “Whoever sees an abomination must straighten it with his hands.” Thus, Saddam Hussein repeated and relied upon this saying of Muhammad in his attack on Kuwait’s ruling family; and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt depended upon this saying when they killed Anwar El Sadat (a real man of peace).

    Therefore, when you hear people saying that Islam is a peaceful religion, know rather that Islam is fighting a holy war for control of the world! That is, the concept of an offensive war, to spread the faith, is a genuine Islamic concept; known as a Holy War for the sake of god. This, not peace, is the essence of Islam! That is, if there were sufficient military power available to Islamic countries, they would attack all other countries in order to force them to embrace Islam. The Qu’ran is the authoritative scripture for the Muslim, and here are a few quotes advocating this militancy toward the non-Muslim:

    #1) But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them. And seize them, beleaguer them. Lie in wait for the in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Surah 9:5)

    #2) Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with will submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Surah 9:29)

    #3) Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive and struggle with your goods and your persons, in the Cause of Allah. (Surah 9:41)

    #4) The infidel is to be “killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land, and in the hereafter theirs will be an awful doom. (Surah 5:33)

    #5) Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth no aggressors. And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful. (Surah 2:190-92)

    #6) Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day. Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah. ( Surah 2:29, 41)

    #7) Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who reject the faith do battle for the cause of evil. So fight ye against the friends of Satan. (Surah 4:76)

    Prophet Muhammad founded Islam with the sword; his followers maintained Islamic rule with the sword; subsequent generations have always spread Islam’s oppressive rule beyond the Arabian Peninsula with the sword. One cannot be a true follower of Islam without holding to the tenants of the Qu’ran, which also advocates forced submission to its rule. How can anyone who knows anything about Islam deny this? Why are so many, today, inclined to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion and not a militant movement, which desires to conquer the world through Jihad?

    Obviously there are political motives behind the President and his administration that have given rise to their many statements that Islam is a peaceful religion. Yet such is simply not the case. If Islamic terrorism is ever going to be defeated, people are going to have to face the fact that it is driven by a historic Muslim belief in “Holy War” as a means of spreading their religion.

    So then, now (today 1/5/07) that we finally have a Muslim (see definition above) in our House (of Representatives) … My CNN question, would be, “Representative Ellison, as a Muslim and ‘deemed’ follower and ‘true believer’ of the Qu’ran … Representative Ellison, to WHICH are you really true – #1 Your elected position, as the American people’s Representative (be they Muslim or NOT), or #2 to your religion’s more demanding and unrelenting requirements? … You, of course, can’t be both; so which is it, really?”

    And he would answer … in the popular and politically correct way, that, ”I was just being bigoted for having even thought to ask him such a question!” … So be it, but at least, I was thinking!

    It’s a hard,
    hard rain that’s gonna fall,

    Robin

    Like

  4. justin says:

    roy hoore pisses me off. what a b—j–. does not he understand freedom of religion and the fact that ellison was ELECTED in a fair, democratic election?

    Hey Moore: Quit being the scheiBekopf you are and cut off your wang; do humanity a favor and do not reproduce

    Like

  5. The 29th Carnival of the Liberals

    Welcome, welcome, friends and fellow progressives, to the 29th edition of the Carnival of the Liberals! My name is Ebonmuse, my weblog is Daylight Atheism, and I’ll be your guide on this tour of some of the best progressive political writing on the In…

    Like

  6. edarrell says:

    Anker: In this instance, Moore is clearly against the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I do know his stand here is wrong, and it sows dissonance. His position is extreme — denying a duly-elected Member of Congress a seat on account of faith? That’s about as lunatic as it comes in First Amendment jurisprudence.

    Besides its just being mean and contrary to the American spirit.

    I have been listening to Moore for years. He sometimes, now, says he is in favor of separation of church and state, but that’s a new line, and his policies do not bear it out. His attempt to hijack the Supreme Court of Alabama into allowing him an odd cult altar in the Supreme Court building is exhibit 1 in the case against him. He has never backed down from his vow to subvert the constitutions of the state and nation in that case.

    Which brings me to another point: Early in his career as a demagogue, there was a rally planned for him to support his illegal display as a state judge. For some odd reason his group asked me to support the rally and donate money. I told them that I was quite nervous about his position, thought I favor religious freedom — and I asked if it would be possible for Moore to simply state that he supports the First Amendment of the Constitution. For several days they hemmed and hawed about that. Finally I got the official response. They sent me an e-mail that said simply, “We have no use for this s–t!”

    Now, you tell me, he’s had a change of heart? There is no evidence. And for me to trust that someone who holds the Bill of Rights in profane disregard, it would take extraordinary evidence.

    The Danbury Baptists were afraid that the State of Connecticut would interfere in their church — they wrote the federal government in hopes Jefferson would intervene if worse came to pass. Moore gets it half right: The Constitution keeps the government out of church affairs. But there is another half he misses: The Constitution also keeps the church — any church, all churces — out of any official role in government. On that score, Moore has been consistently wrong over the years, and he has never backtracked.

    His xenophobic, anti-American call against Keith Ellison is further evidence that Moore is out to lunch on the issue.

    So, I’ve been responsible enough to ask, politely. Moore has told me in a profane manner that he does not support the U.S. Constitution any longer (assuming he did support it when he took the oath to uphold and defend it as a soldier).

    You should remain skeptical of all things you read politically. But you would do well to read Jefferson’s side of the Danbury Baptist affair. It would only be fair, and Moore has never been a friend to Jefferson.

    Am I ranting against Moore? Some challenges to our freedom are great enough to require a rant. I merely stated the facts. If it is a rant, Moore deserves it — and you would be well advised to steer clear of him, and regard most of what he says as hooey for hire. The people of Alabama have repeatedly put their trust in Moore to carry out important civic duties, to fulfill oaths he swore to protect and defend the Constitution and the constitution of Alabama. Repeatedly, Moore has shirked those duties, often in egregious and astounding ways. I see that in the last go ’round, Alabama chose someone else for office. When even Alabama rejects such divisive politics, one should pay attention.

    Like

  7. Anker says:

    You rant and rave about that of which you do not know. For example you say:

    “Of course, Moore himself rails against the separation of church and state at every opportunity.”

    That statement is a lie!

    I happen to know first hand (because I have heard him speak on the subject) that Moore supports separation of church and state. He told in his talk of its origins in the Old Testament when God separated the roles of priests and kings and severely punished Kings who violated the principle.

    It is that same principle that Jefferson wrote of in his letter to the Danbury Baptists where he declined, as President, to have the federal government intervene in church business. THAT is the proper use of “separation of church and state” – to keep the government from interfering in the business of the church. THAT is what Jefferson was writing about and what Moore means when he talks about the subject.

    If you’d have been responsible enough to ask, I’m sure Moore would have told you in a polite and straightforward manner, just like he does in his many, many speeches he continually delivers all across the country.

    However, since you obviously assume and rant and rave over subjects you know very little about then I must assume that you do that on all your writings so I will be quite skeptical (and so should others) of the veracity of any of your rants and ramblings you post.

    Like

  8. […] Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub […]

    Like

  9. Greg Laden says:

    You have hit this particular nail on the head.

    (My own take: http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=66

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,376 other followers

%d bloggers like this: