Althouse: "One lady told me she thinks I'm doing the right thing on this."

December 22, 2006

"One lady told me she thinks I'm doing the right thing on this."

Oh, well, all right then.

85 comments:

MadisonMan said...: I give you Senator Brownback's running mate.; 12/22/06, 10:48 AM
Beth said...: Damn you, Madisonman! You beat me to it.

"the Virgil Goode way" -- this is right out of a musical. Well, there's going to be Muslims, right here in River City.; 12/22/06, 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...: There was a Sikh member of Congress almost 50 years ago. Wonder if he took his oath on Sikh scriptures or not.

Ellison might not be a nice guy, but Goode is being a major putz here, giving CAIR an opening for complaining just as their "flying imams" planned stunt was exposed as a fraud.; 12/22/06, 11:03 AM
Beth said...: "Ellison might not be a nice guy"

What's your basis for that roundabout criticism? What makes you think he's "not a nice guy"? And if you have no reason to think so, why introduce the idea that he might not be a nice guy?; 12/22/06, 11:20 AM
Telecomedian said...: First, Macacagate, and now Korangate. I do love living in Virginia...I think.; 12/22/06, 11:26 AM
Ken B said...: Ellison is "not a nice guy" because of his history. He is a member of the Nation of Islam, and a follower of Farrakhan.
Not a nice guy.; 12/22/06, 11:30 AM
dklittl said...: Again, how does that make him not a nice guy. Millions of people have followed the words of people like Pat Robertson and Ted Haggard and I doubt that you'd make the same logical leap in qualifying them as not nice people.; 12/22/06, 11:36 AM
MadisonMan said...: Not a nice guy.

Presumably you base this statement on the fact that Farrakhan is not a nice guy, therefore his followers must not be nice. And I'm not even sure you could accurately call Ellison a true follower.

Conversely, Christ was a really nice guy. All his followers must be really nice, too.; 12/22/06, 11:43 AM
Zeb Quinn said...: I don't know much about Goode. But I find myself, urbane, cosmopolitan, and educated as I am, more or less agreeing with him on this particular point.

To me, Muslims in general have some things for which they must account and even to some extent apologize. For things which have been done on their behalves and in their names over the last 15 years or so. And for five years I've waiting for them start doing that. And they haven't. Instead I see them making demands and setting up situations where they can posture as supposed victims. That doesn't cut it with me.

So there.

As for Ellison, the Powerline guys pretty much connected the dots showing his longstanding connection with radical Islam.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015594.php

Call me a bigot, but they haven't earned my trust.; 12/22/06, 11:49 AM
Ken B said...: Ann must have the LAZIEST commenters on the internet, since few of them can google Keith Ellison. (Google is a search engine, and you can find lots of cool stuff. Like this: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015415.php )

Not a nice guy. But I bet he can use google without help!; 12/22/06, 11:59 AM
Beth said...: I can google, thanks. But powerline isn't somewhere I turn for credible information. That's the problem with using the internet for research; all sorts of crap turns up.; 12/22/06, 12:26 PM
MadisonMan said...: I will note that Virgil Goode's problem with Ellison is simply his religion (How unAmerican is that!). Goode makes no mention of the Nation of Islam. Apparently he's as lazy as the commenters here.

How sad that all the Voters in Minnesota were, um, snowed, by Ellison.; 12/22/06, 12:26 PM
Anonymous said...: madisonman,

Farrakhan is to Ellison as Christ is to his (Christ's) followers? Is this really the analogy you want to make?; 12/22/06, 12:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Why do I get the feeling that the more Virgil Goode hates Muslims, the more he'd find common ground with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.; 12/22/06, 12:40 PM
Ken B said...: Elizabeth's reaction is sadly typical. Powerline includes links and images from newspaper reports, so his "credibility" is not really an issue. It is an excuse. There is nothing you have to take his word for.

Ellison's links to bad people are longstanding and clear. Not a nice guy.; 12/22/06, 12:43 PM
Anon Y. Mous said...: "Presumably you base this statement on the fact that Farrakhan is not a nice guy, therefore his followers must not be nice."

Yes, it is totally unfair to judge him by his membership in the Nation of Islam. No doubt, you also feel it is unfair to judge Robert Byrd because of his membership in the KKK. Just because someone associates with cross-burners, doesn't make him a bad guy.; 12/22/06, 12:44 PM
Beth said...: Links and images from newspapers? Wow! I have to start reading that blog. It links to newspapers so it must be really, really good.; 12/22/06, 12:53 PM
Molon_Labe_Lamp said...: "I will note that Virgil Goode's problem with Ellison is simply his religion (How unAmerican is that!)."

Actually it's all too American

Kennedy was hailded as the first Catholic president.

Some significant portion of voters don't want any religion mentioned.

And lastly the professional punditocracy salivates at the possible torment Romney's religion will cause Christian conservatives.

Goode's a moron, but let's not pretend this is unprecedented.

The Powerline pieces on Ellison do contain quite a bit of undisputed facts. Powerline is without question a conservative site, but they've built a strong rep on thoughtful, rhetoric free writing. You can disagree with the philosophy but they rarely play fast and loose with the facts.; 12/22/06, 12:58 PM
Ken B said...: Logic lesson for Elizabeth.

Someone said Ellison was not so nice and you wrote:
"What makes you think he's "not a nice guy"? And if you have no reason to think so, why introduce the idea that he might not be a nice guy? " (You asked this question in bad faith I expect, but you asked it.)

Well that question has been answered. It does not matter -- logically -- if you believe the reasons, or even if they are particularly good ones. You asked if we have a reason to think so, and we cited reasons.

You have your answer, but you pretend otherwise.; 12/22/06, 12:59 PM
MadisonMan said...: Jeff, are the followers of each all the same?

anon.y.mous, I judge Senator Byrd on his horrible record in the Senate.; 12/22/06, 1:00 PM
DookOfURL said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 12/22/06, 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...: The Sadly, No guys have some fun with the Rocket Man here I hope Ann doesn't mind, but it's just too funny.; 12/22/06, 1:15 PM
MadisonMan said...: I guess the question for all is: Should incoming Congresscritters swear on a Bible if the Bible means nothing (in a Religious way) to them?

I freely confess to ignorance in how Muslims treat or consider the Bible -- other than it's illegal to have one in Saudi Arabia, I seem to recall reading, so swearing on it must mean very little. If you're swearing to uphold the Constitution (not the Bible) so help you God, it seems like you should be pledging this on the Holy Book you use to describe your relationship with God. (I'm not sure what an atheist would use)

Whether or not Mr. Ellison is a Good Man or a Bad Man is not very relevant to that question.; 12/22/06, 1:18 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: In the spirit of Christmas, fair, informed (I concur that Powerline can be informative but also too strident)and intelligent people would agree Goode is being a jackass here but there is sufficient evidence that Ellison has some significant stains on his resume and should be a 1-term rep.

We will have a far better Congress when the majority overlooks the candidate's party affiliation and votes accordingly.; 12/22/06, 1:27 PM
Mark Daniels said...: Goode's ideas are un-Christian, un-American, and unconstitutional.

About a month ago, when Dennis Prager insisted that Keith Ellison should not be allowed to take the oath of office on the Koran, I was appalled. But Goode's take on it is even loonier than that of Prager, if that's possible.

http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-would-i-want-to-force-keith.html

Mark Daniels; 12/22/06, 1:30 PM
Too Many Jims said...: Ken,

I won't get into whether Ellison is a good guy or not. Nor will I get into whether he should be judged by affiliations with people who are (or Powerline believes to be) dangerous. I would note though that Ellison is not member of the NOI and is not a follower of Farrakhan.; 12/22/06, 1:37 PM
Anon Y. Mous said...: MadisonMan: "I judge Senator Byrd on his horrible record in the Senate."

As far as that goes, I agree. I also think it's relevant that he used to be an Exalted Cyclops in the KKK. It seems to me that it reveals something about his character.

I also think it reveals something about the character of his supporters.; 12/22/06, 1:49 PM
Clarey watcher said...: Whatever Ellison's like, his statements in that article are princely -- good for him. And shame on us that a naked bigot like Goode can hold office.

So, I went to look at the PowerLine article that zeb quinn says "connects the dots" between Ellison and radical Islam. It does no such thing. It connects some dots between CAIR and radical Islam: then again, CAIR is also backing Holocaust memorials. It's a big organization, fas as I know, prone to many of the ills of ethinc organizations and lobbying groups. zeb quinn also seems concerned that lots of bad stuff has been done in the name of Islam and so Muslims, everywhere, bear some collective guilt for it and should apologize. Interesting. Should blacks all apologize for OJ? Christians for OK City and priest abuse? That's crap.

And would "johnannarbor" please explain to me how the "flying imams" "stunt" was a fraud? C'mon: how is it cool to talk smack like this about Muslims?; 12/22/06, 1:50 PM
Dave said...: No politician is a nice guy. They're all crooks.; 12/22/06, 1:55 PM
Zeb Quinn said...: Whether or not Ellison is today a member of the Nation of Islam is irrelevant. It's been established that he was a member of NOI for years and years-- right up until the point that he decided that his calling was as an elected politician, and it was then that he began denying that he was a member. But facts are stubborn things.

Were Minnesota voters snowed? Nah. There are enough whackadoos in the Twin Cities area to carry the day on that, and that's also why Minnesota has become the nutsy leftist bastion it is. I have many relatives living all over rural Minnesota --farmers-- and none of them or their neighbors think or vote like the Twin Cities voters. Anecdotal, I know, but over the years I've met a veritable plethora of them in the small town farming communities of Minnesota.; 12/22/06, 1:56 PM
tiggeril said...: Why not have them swear on a copy of the Constitution?; 12/22/06, 2:00 PM
Anon Y. Mous said...: MadisonMan: "I guess the question for all is: Should incoming Congresscritters swear on a Bible if the Bible means nothing (in a Religious way) to them?"
[...]
"If you're swearing to uphold the Constitution (not the Bible) so help you God, it seems like you should be pledging this on the Holy Book you use to describe your relationship with God. (I'm not sure what an atheist would use)"

I agree. He should use whatever is most meaningful to him when he takes his vow.

"Whether or not Mr. Ellison is a Good Man or a Bad Man is not very relevant to that question."

Again, I agree. But, it is unfortunate that all this focus is being placed on the wrong question. What the question should be is where his beliefs take him. For example, does he believe in the separation of church and state, or does he want to see us live under Sharia. Powerline raises that and other related questions.; 12/22/06, 2:04 PM
tjl said...: "please explain to me how the "flying imams" "stunt" was a fraud."

The Imams went out of their way to draw the attention of fellow passengers by making a noisy and highly visible demonstration of prayers in the departure lounge.
On boarding the plane, they refused to take their assigned seats, and insisted on seating themselves in a pattern that the flight crew would have recognized as that of the 9/11 highjackers. They asked for seatbelt extenders which they didn't need, but stowed them under their seats. They engaged in loud conversation whose content was alarming enough to provoke an Arabic-speaking passenger to alert the flight attendants.

The imams' behavior is hard to explain unless you conclude they were deliberately trying to create an incident.; 12/22/06, 2:08 PM
Anonymous said...: To add to what tjl said, the imams' stories do not match those of all the other witnesses, including flight crew, cabin crew, and other passengers. I believe it was an Arabic-speaking Muslim that alerted the flight crew to what the loud Arabic talk was about. That guy's a hero, and he's also smart to keep a low profile after he blew the imams' cover.

Also, it's not a coincidence this happened in Minneapolis, where there is a long, on-going dispute over Muslim cab drivers suddenly refusing to carry passengers with alcohol. That is also a targeted operation, since the issue has never come up elsewhere.; 12/22/06, 2:17 PM
Anon Y. Mous said...: Clarey watcher: "...lots of bad stuff has been done in the name of Islam and so Muslims, everywhere, bear some collective guilt for it and should apologize. Interesting. Should blacks all apologize for OJ? Christians for OK City and priest abuse? That's crap."

Back when the KKK was at it's peak, there were plenty of Christians speaking up, to say that what the KKK was doing was not what Christianity was all about. Had they instead just kept quiet, it would have been understandable for others to wonder if they really supported what was going on. Those burning crosses made a statement about the beliefs of some Christians, and the majority was rightly concerned about being stained by the association.

If Muslims want the rest of us to believe that jihadism is not what they believe in, they will have to do some convincing. If they don't care about the perception, then they are on the right path now.; 12/22/06, 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Ann, just read what your core demographic has to say about this. Ask yourself why you seem to attract so many full-blown racists, or maybe just remember this thread next time you deny pandering to the lobotomized Right.; 12/22/06, 2:42 PM
KCFleming said...: Re; "why you seem to attract so many full-blown racists"

Whenever I read Doyle, I regret it, but then I remember that the disabled need our prayers, too.; 12/22/06, 2:47 PM
Anonymous said...: For some odd reason, I'm impressed that Goode said "damn you all, I ain't gonna play that game."

I have a theory: It's because you're the kind of dittohead moron who uses the term "PC Machine."; 12/22/06, 2:50 PM
Beth said...: "You have your answer, but you pretend otherwise."

No, Ken, I've not pretended otherwise. What I did was take exception to your adolescent tone and "what, don't you know how to GOOOOOOGLE?" question.

As to powerline's rep for facts, I suppose that depends on your perspective. I've taken time since this thread started to read several sources on Ellison, and what I read on powerline was selective and omitted what I found on other sites. That fits with what I've noticed about powerline in the past.

There are too many blogs to bother with them all. I draw the line both left and right, using various criteria. Powerline's on my "don't bother" list along with Kos, Malkin, LGF, and quite a few others. That's my judgment call.; 12/22/06, 3:00 PM
hdhouse said...: so nice to have Ken on here to balance out the demographic between reasonable and idiotic, intellectually curious and outright stupid, America and Nazi.

Just so nice.; 12/22/06, 3:04 PM
Unknown said...: I was wondering when you were going to blog about this.

America is a Christian nation. The Quran is forbidden. Doesn't everyone know that by now???; 12/22/06, 3:14 PM
Beth said...: Thanks, anon.y.mous. Your example of how Powerline "raises questions" illustrates exactly what I think makes the site unreliable. Does he raise the same questions about conservative Christians elected to office, as to whether their religion might cause them to be unfriendly to women or gay citizens? Whether it will influence their vote on scientific research? No, of course not.

And that whole "asking questions" approach is slimy, on the left or on the right. Make an assertion if you have evidence that Ellison is poised to work Sharia law into his representation of his district. Otherwise, "asking questions" is just sliming by inference.; 12/22/06, 3:22 PM
Anonymous said...: By your standard, Elizabeth, David Duke should have been judged only on his campaign platforms, not on his past KKK membership. I think that Duke's past with the KKK, which he minimized, should have been considered (and voters did, voting for a known criminal over Duke in one major election by a huge margin). Rep-elect Ellison has taken pains to minimize his Nation of Islam past, implying he wasn't in it as long as he was and did not agree with its positions, but examination of the record tells a different story, one the Minneapolis Star-Tribune took pains to ignore.

(Of course, Sen. Byrd is judged that way with regard to the KKK, but the magic capital D after his name erases all sins.); 12/22/06, 3:31 PM
Anon Y. Mous said...: Elizabeth: "Does he raise the same questions about conservative Christians elected to office, as to whether their religion might cause them to be unfriendly to women or gay citizens? Whether it will influence their vote on scientific research? No, of course not."

The point is that the Quran demands Sharia, and that Sharia is incompatible with our form of government. Therefore, when a lawmaker swears on a Quran to uphold our constitution, it is reasonable to ask him how he squares all that up.

"And that whole "asking questions" approach is slimy, on the left or on the right. Make an assertion if you have evidence that Ellison is poised to work Sharia law into his representation of his district. Otherwise, "asking questions" is just sliming by inference."

What's wrong with inference? If I ever get the chance to sit him down and have him directly answer all questions I might have for him, then I can use direct observation. Until then, I will have to rely on inference. And inferring that he believes in the contents of the book he is intending on swearing upon is not sliming him.; 12/22/06, 3:43 PM
Too Many Jims said...: Whether or not Ellison is today a member of the Nation of Islam is irrelevant.

It is to the extent that someone is arguing that he can't be trusted because "He is a member of the Nation of Islam, and a follower of Farrakhan."

It's been established that he was a member of NOI for years and years." It has? Powerline links to a number of stories that say he is connected to CAIR. Is he connected to CAIR or NOI? The people who oppose Ellison really should choose whether he is NOI or a radical muslim.; 12/22/06, 3:53 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Note: I'm deleting the F-word now, so don't spell it out anymore.; 12/22/06, 3:55 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Here's what the NYT said most recently about Ellison and the NOI:

"Mr. Ellison was attacked on religious grounds by his Republican opponent, Alan Fine. In September, Mr. Fine said that as a Jew he was personally offended by Mr. Ellison's past support for Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the radical group Nation of Islam.

"Mr. Ellison denied any link to Mr. Farrakhan and reached out to Jews, eventually gaining some endorsements from Jewish groups."

And this is from an earlier NYT article:

"The press and Republican blogs like MinnesotaDemocratsExposed.com unearthed problems from Mr. Ellison's past. They included late filings of income taxes and campaign finance reports, plus a raft of unpaid moving violations and parking tickets that led to a suspended driver's license.

"Most damaging were newspaper columns that he wrote under the pen name Keith E. Hakim in 1989 and 1990, when Mr. Ellison was a law student at the University of Minnesota. One explosive column defended Mr. Farrakhan against accusations of racism. Conservatives accused Mr. Ellison of having been a local leader for the radical group.

"Mr. Ellison quickly apologized for past mistakes. He said repeatedly, including in a local synagogue, that he was distantly affiliated with the Nation of Islam for 18 months while helping to organize the Minnesota delegation to the Million Man March in Washington in 1995."; 12/22/06, 4:22 PM
PatCA said...: Ellison was defending Farrakan in articles under the name of Keith Hakim as far back as 1989-90. To me this constitutes "involvement" with the NOI. I take his apology as seriously as I would take an apology from David Duke.

In any case, since his election a month ago, he has given the keynote address to CAIR (by video) and spoke to an Imam convention in person, whose members later had the incident of being kicked off a US Airways jet, and is now leading the mau-mauing of the airline on their behalf. But he is for gay marriage, apparently, so everything is okay.

Now, I know all these murders and bombings the world over are done by White Baptists in disguise, but he is an activist for an Islam that I perceive as dangerous. I really don't care what names you choose to call me because of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ellison_(politician); 12/22/06, 4:42 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Ellison is a Muslim who supports gay marriage....?? Wow, how did he keep that quiet? Will his fellow devout Muslims take him for a long camel ride off a short pier?; 12/22/06, 5:16 PM
Anonymous said...: I think it's good he went through a few different political phases over the years. The ability to look back at yourself 15-20 years ago and point out that you've changed is a sign of maturity. Senator Goode reaches for a different kind of maturity and ends up sounding like my grandma after she downs a couple Long Islands.; 12/22/06, 5:21 PM
Beth said...: By your standard, Elizabeth, David Duke should have been judged only on his campaign platforms, not on his past KKK membership.

That's a patently ridiculous statement. Quote me providing a standard for judging Ellison in this discussion. You can't, because I haven't. You may be confusing my comments with someone else's, or you might just be spouting nonsense.; 12/22/06, 5:27 PM
Beth said...: The point is that the Quran demands Sharia, and that Sharia is incompatible with our form of government.

Sharia law is incompatible with our government, agreed. But there's nothing to show that being Muslim makes one an advocate for Sharia law. There's a huge variance of how Sharia law is practiced around the world in Muslim countries. PatCA's comment about Ellison supporting gay marriage seems a good indicator that he's not pushing Sharia law on anyone.

Old Testament law is incompatible with our country, as well. When is Powerline going to be up in arms about Jews in Congress, or conservative Christians?

Now, how long will it take before one of the hysterial conservative ninnies here demands to know why I want a Caliphate in America?

Meanwhile, back to the main topic: Ellison hasn't even taken office, so we can't make a judgment on him yet. But the evidence seems pretty clear that Virgil Goode is an enormous ass.; 12/22/06, 5:38 PM
Beth said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 12/22/06, 5:38 PM
Beau said...: 'The point is that the Quran demands Sharia, and that Sharia is incompatible with our form of government. Therefore, when a lawmaker swears on a Quran to uphold our constitution, it is reasonable to ask him how he squares all that up.'

I think comments such as the above miss the entire point about what anyone chooses to use when swearing an oath. Isn't the point to use an article/concept that represents something so important to that individual that witnesses to the event know without a doubt that the swearee is serious. People swear on their mother's grave, on their children's life, etc, to drive their seriousness home.

It's meaningless for someone else to swear on my children's life and for Ellison to swear on a bible is just as meaningless for him. Might as well ask him to swear on yesterday's newspaper.; 12/22/06, 6:12 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: Ha Ha Ha, Ellison has suckered all of you. Islam is just a front he uses to cover up the fact that his is a major idiot.

Ellison collected over 40 parking tickets in Minneapolis and says he forgot to pay them. Lets get real. Do you know anyone like that? Do you know anyone like that who deserves to be in an important position. He also collects an average of one moving violation a year. How pathetic.

Ellison suckered the lefty Democratic party bosses in Minneapolis into giving him their endorsement because he is a double minority...a black muslim. What a joke. He has rode black muslim all the way to the bank and now to Congress It's pathetic. You see people on this board like Elizabeth blindly supporting him only becasue they see someone they hate, like Congressman Goode, criticising Ellison - you know the old cliche: the enemy of my enemy is my friend - many see Ellison as a foil to conservative Christians so they overlook his idiot behavior - they overlook his connection to an oppressive religion - a religion that has its boot on millions of women in the world. I have to puke at those on this board who apologize for the likes of Ellison, who apologize for the Nation of Islam and apologize for the oppression of women by the religion of peace.; 12/22/06, 10:28 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: I think comments such as the above miss the entire point about what anyone chooses to use when swearing an oath. Isn't the point to use an article/concept that represents something so important to that individual that witnesses to the event know without a doubt that the swearee is serious.

True, but there is a story in Islam where Mohammed lies to the elders of Medina saying he will not cause any trouble. Mohammed later rationalizes this broken contract, by saying it was okay as long as it wwas to further Islam.

I don't recall anything like this in Christianity.

Therefore, If Ellison is a true believer of Islam how can we then believe anything he says or does about our government - the government of the infidel...; 12/22/06, 10:40 PM
PatCA said...: Well said, Sloan. Life is not just a parlor game, is it?

And now, I'm off, and a Merry Christmas to you all.; 12/22/06, 10:41 PM
Beth said...: You see people on this board like Elizabeth blindly supporting him

No, what I see are people like Sloan and ken and anonymous putting words in my mouth and the mouths of others because they either can't read, or they get excited playing toy soldier against their own straw arguments.

I don't have any opinion on Ellison. I've expressed no support for him, only for the Constitution and its assertion that we will have no religious tests for those elected to hold office. Failing to understand that is what makes Virgil Goode an enormous ass.

I didn't elect Ellison, and I don't know what kind of legislator he'll be. I haven't supported him in any way, much less "blindly." I have to say, for you, Sloan, to distort my posts in that way is classless on your part.

I agree with you on one thing: his explanation about "forgetting" his many tickets is bogus. As bogus as claiming that being a druggy and drunk up through age 40 is a mere "youthful indiscretion." What kind of idiotic voters would fall for that?; 12/22/06, 10:53 PM
Beth said...: Sweet Jesus. A day or so ago I read in the comments on this blog that black people have not been assimilated in the United States, and now, from these comments, it's clear that some here believe that Muslims cannot be citizens of our country. WTF???; 12/22/06, 10:56 PM
Joe Giles said...: This was the biggest lie in the story:

"Ellison said Thursday that Goode and others had nothing to fear about Muslims."

No, I don't fear the local imam or the guy who runs the Phoenician deli, but it wouldn't surprise me if either was plotting against the US or supporting Hamas.

There's been enough examples of both within the US, and Ellison talks as if we are not at war (and really have been for 30 years) with militant Islam.; 12/22/06, 11:24 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 12/22/06, 11:35 PM
Beth said...: Viola, indeed, Naked Lunch, or should I say, Canned Hulk.; 12/23/06, 12:12 AM
michilines said...: oh!; 12/23/06, 12:34 AM
Anon Y. Mous said...: Elizabeth: "No, what I see are people like Sloan and ken and anonymous putting words in my mouth and the mouths of others because they either can't read, or they get excited playing toy soldier against their own straw arguments."

What words did I put in your mouth? What words did I put in anybody else's mouth? What straw arguments have I put forward?

Please be specific.; 12/23/06, 12:44 AM
Derve said...: True, but there is a story in Islam where Mohammed lies to the elders of Medina saying he will not cause any trouble. Mohammed later rationalizes this broken contract, by saying it was okay as long as it wwas to further Islam.

I don't recall anything like this in Christianity.

How about this one from the OT?:

Rebekah overheard Isaac talking to Esau and rushed to tell her favorite son Jacob. She said to Jacob, "Your father is about to give Esau his blessing and I want you to have it instead. You need to go get two of our goats and bring them to me, I will prepare them just the way Isaac likes it. Then you can take it to him and he will give you the blessing instead."

Jacob replied, "But mom, Esau is a hairy man. What if dad touches me and realizes that I'm tricking him?"

His mother said to him, "Don't worry you can wear Esau's clothes and we'll put the goat hair on your hands and neck so he'll never know."

So they did just that and Jacob went to see his father pretending to be Esau.
...
Later:
"It's me, your son Esau. I'm hear to get my blessing," said Esau confused.

"I just gave you your blessing." And Abraham started to realize he had been tricked just like he thought. Esau started crying and yelling, "Bless me too father!"

"There is no blessing left," said his father sadly.; 12/23/06, 4:35 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Sorry, I'm deleting comments that use the hardcore expletives without inserting asterisks. Please follow this new policy. I'm fending off filters.; 12/23/06, 6:06 AM
Oxbay said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 12/23/06, 7:52 AM
Oxbay said...: Sayeth the Lord:

Islam is evil.

Here's an example. You may choose to believe that God exists. You may choose to believe that prophets and prophecy are real.

The so called prophet of Islam, Mohammed, when he was in his 50s said to his best buddy Abu Bakr I want to marry your daughter. Abu Bakr replied by asking isn't she a little young. Right after that Mohammed had a "revelation" that said God approved Mohammed marrying this girl. Abu Bakr had to acquiesce after all it was From God. His daughter, Aisha, eventually married Mohammed. I have read that the original proposal took place when Aisha was 5 years old and Mohammed married her when she was 6 years old. In this scenario he waited until she was 9 before consummating the marriage. I have also read that she was 9 years old when she married the so called prophet.

When the ayatollah Khommeini and his crew acquired power in Iran and constituted their Islamic republic one of the first laws, if not the first, they passed was lowering the age of consent for girls to 9 years old. Thereafter and now 9 year old girls can be married with all that that implies.

I submit that this is evil.

You may try to qualify this evil by arguing that there are different cultural norms. We have to respect differences. You may take that line.

Here's what has to be reconciled. In Islam it is believed, and if you don't believe it you are an infidel, that when Mohammed recited after a revelation he was reciting the direct words of God. Nothing added; nothing subtracted. If God exists would God give countenance to a man in his 50s marrying a 9 year old girl and having sex with her? Never mind a 6 year old?

I submit the answer is no. No. No.

Mohammed was a fraud. Islam was created by a charlatan.; 12/23/06, 8:15 AM
Anonymous said...: *Sh_t* is a hardcore expletive?; 12/23/06, 9:42 AM
Christy said...: Naked, the one time I said that word in my entire life my mom slapped me clear across the kitchen, so I guess my Momma agrees with Althouse that it's hardcore.; 12/23/06, 10:37 AM
me said...: So, lets say we all agree that the religion of Islam is "evil." Therefore, what do we do with its many millions of adherents? Are they all "evil" too? They definitely BELIEVE something "evil." Do we convert them to Christianity by the sword? Do we kill all those who refuse to give up their religion? How do we get rid of this "evil"?

Labeling a whole relgion as evil is dangerous not so much for what it says, but for what it implies. If something is evil, we should do our best to stamp it out, after all. It gets dangerously close to elimiationist rhetoric, and is quite sickening. Yes, there are some very repellant things in the Koran. There also are some repellant things in the Bible -- what about Lot offering his daughters to the Sodomites to be raped? Get a grip, people.; 12/23/06, 10:58 AM
Beth said...: You're right, anon.y.mous; I was wrong to include you in that list. I'm sorry.; 12/23/06, 11:13 AM
Beth said...: me, those are all good questions. Our constitution clearly states that there can be no test of religion required for election to the House or Senate. But the comments here have gone waaay past that simple matter, and it's impossible not to think that at least some of these people want Muslims out of America.; 12/23/06, 11:43 AM
Beth said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 12/23/06, 11:44 AM
Anon Y. Mous said...: Thank you, Elizabeth. Apology accepted.; 12/23/06, 11:49 AM
Zeb Quinn said...: I'm sorry my one link to one Powerline post about Ellison was insufficient for some. When I wrote that "the Powerline guys pretty much connected the dots showing his longstanding connection with radical Islam," and then offered that link, I didn't mean to imply that one linked post contained the sum of what they have written about Ellison, only that it is representative of what they have written about. In fact they have written a veritable plethora of pieces, indeed exposés, about Ellison.

You just need to know how to google to find them. But here, I'll do it for you:

http://tinyurl.com/yzprvu; 12/23/06, 1:20 PM
Ann Althouse said...: As to the word "sh*t": I've never said it in class in 22 years of teaching.; 12/23/06, 2:21 PM
Jonathan said...: I don't care about Goode. He's mischaracterizing the problem with Ellison as being related to a swearing-in ceremony. (And I don't think there's anything wrong with using the Koran there. Nor is there anything wrong with Muslim citizens serving as elected officials.)

The problem is that a lot of us suspect that Ellison is sympathetic to Islamists. Otherwise, why is he having anything to do with CAIR or with the flying imams, whose quest for publicity/payoffs he appears to support?

Because Ellison prefers to be evasive, and the MSM and most of the political establishment refuse to confront him with the right questions, we don't know if he is or isn't sympathetic to Islamism. Goode is merely taking advantage of the elites' refusal to address issues which ordinary Americans think are important.

If any of us cracks the wrong joke in an airport we can be arrested, because our government wants to set an example of how seriously it takes air security. Yet the imams appear to have gone out of their way to speak and act provocatively and they are treated with kid gloves. That sets an example too. The PC-driven absurdity of much of our government's handling of security issues seems terribly dangerous to many of us, and IMO is a major subtext of public concern in the case of the imams. Yet the MSM and most of our elected officials refuse to acknowledge this.

The MSM should be confronting our elected officials about these issues. They should be putting Ellison on the spot about his expressions of sympathy for troublemakers while ordinary people get arrested for making jokes. But it never seems to happen, and the MSM are as easily distracted from the main story by spurious accusations of ethnic bias as a watchdog might be distracted by throwing it some meat.; 12/23/06, 2:50 PM
Sanjay said...: You've never, ever, had a profound and immediate, undeniable need to curse like a sailor while teaching.

Either you lie or Madison is a paradise, man.; 12/23/06, 3:06 PM
MadisonMan said...: Sanjay, I can't conceive of a situation where I'd curse in front of a student. But then I don't swear.; 12/23/06, 10:03 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: Maybe Ellison should be required to take a beefed up oath if he wants to swear on the Koran. After all, his religion is openly hostile to our constitution and our western way of life.

We need to get real about freedom of religion and what the founders meant by it. If someone's religion is openly hostile to our democratic traditions, we should consider putting that person in the "enemy" column rather than the "different religion" column.

My real opinion of Ellison is that his "Muslim conversion" is a fraud. He did it because he got sucked in by the Nation of Islam people and saw Islam as a way to be less traditional-American, i.e. less white (the same reason Muhammad Ali changed became a muslim). The whole Koran thing is just another stunt in a lifetime of stunts.; 12/23/06, 11:27 PM
Beth said...: Sanjay, I'll speak up for the crude among us. I've had the urge to curse more than a few times in my 13 years in the classroom, but I've managed to stifle it every time. Now, I do tend to start off the intro to poetry survey with Philip Larkin's "This Be the Verse," so yes, cursing does occur, but in context.; 12/23/06, 11:27 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: I've expressed no support for him, only for the Constitution and its assertion that we will have no religious tests for those elected to hold office. Failing to understand that is what makes Virgil Goode an enormous ass.

It's more than just about religion. Ellison is crapping on traditional America. Islam is a religion that is anti-western, anti-democratic, oppressive, and is really at its core anti-american. There is no such thing as a divison between Caesar and God in Islam.

Swearing on the Koran could mean many things - it could mean that he thinks our Constitution is junk and that Islam is the highest law.

Frankly, I see his swearing on the Koran akin to swearing on the the bylaws of say...the Nation of Islam.

But, as a said in a post above, we probably have nothing to worry about as Ellison is a fraud anyway.; 12/23/06, 11:40 PM
MadisonMan said...: it could mean that he thinks our Constitution is junk and that Islam is the highest law.

One could write the same thing about using the Bible. Well, change Islam to something like Christianity. Again, if you're swearing to do something to the best of you ability so help you God, why not do it on the main book of your religion?

I did learn something in this comment thread -- the swearing in with the Bible, or Koran, or whatever you choose, is symbolic and follows the mass swearing in in the House that is apparently the "official" one that doesn't use a Religious Book at all. They just raise their right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution.

All this discussion over a photo-op.; 12/24/06, 12:37 AM
Clarey watcher said...: To the variously shaded bigots who have been commenting in this thread about the unsuitability of Muslims for public office, I just have to revel in Ellison's swearing in on Thomas Jefferson's old Koran.

In your face!; 1/3/07, 2:51 PM