Monday, October 23, 2006

Which will rule? American law or Islamic law?

From the Boston Globe: “Muslim could be first in Congress

While there is no such thing as a sure thing in politics, congressional candidate Keith Ellison is a good bet to join the freshman class of 2006 in the US House of Representatives.

If he does, Ellison, who is the Democratic nominee in an overwhelmingly Democratic district, will take the oath of office with his hand on the Koran and not the Bible -- the first Muslim in American history to be elected to Congress.
That would be the Koran that dictates that any Muslim that chooses another religion must be put to death. When Ellison takes the oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, how can he square this with Islamic law that stands – in many aspects – in direct contradiction to the freedoms we hold “self-evident”? I’m troubled.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Only putting one member of the House to death is what's troubling.

Anonymous said...

Notice he is running as a demacrat one of the parties most hostile to traditional american families and conservative christains but thats most likely why he is running asa demacrat

Anonymous said...

"When Ellison takes the oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, how can he square this with Islamic law that stands – in many aspects – in direct contradiction to the freedoms we hold “self-evident”?"

Simple. I'll bet $5.00 that he is allowed to forego the oath. We are a "more tolerant" nation now and taking that oath would be a conflict so he won't have to. Watch, just watch, you heard it here first.

enobarbus said...

I find it hard to sweat this one. From here, it's not a terribly long stretch to questioning the place of Jews in Congress based on some of the oddball things in Leviticus.

Remember that, according to the Bible, God (Yahweh, that is, God of both Christians and Jews) righteously slew Onan for beating his meat.

I think we can all get behind not taking that too seriously . . .

Anonymous said...

Well at least he agrees with the Republicans that in spite of what almost the entire rest of the world says, the death penalty isn't a sign of a barbaric, bloodthirsty, immature society. So what's the problem?