Oh, well then, that’s COMPLETELY different!
Seriously though: do you actually think that’s different? The Bible didn’t stop many Christians in this country from owning slaves over a couple of centuries. And after the revolution, they wrote those “accepting” “recommendations” into the Constitution by keeping the vote away from blacks and women. Ellison certainly isn’t going to write HIS book’s laws into the Constitution.
Sorry about that but you will note that I got it right two out of the three times in that post. 
Thanks for the answer.
True. The bible did nothing to challenge the US constitution of that time. 
First, the initial US Constitution was drafted by Deists,who are not Christians. Secondly, the New Testament does not recommend slavery or withholding the vote . If it did, where are the fundamentalists calling for a return to slavery or the disenfrachisement of blacks? And as far as the recomendation regarding wifely submission to husbands, where is the fundamentalist call for the disenfranchisement of women ?
The New Testament is just not a document that demands political objectives or stringently codifies laws and punishment contrary to the US Constitution. The Koran does, and it makes clear that the implementation of these laws can be achieved by means other than the process outlined in the US Constitution.
[HIJACK]
This is oversimplistic. Here is a good discussion on the question “What religion were the founding fathers?” with both perspectives presented (they were Christian/no they weren’t). (And note that I personally don’t agree with all the comments posted, by either side.) Suffice it to say that while some of the Founding Fathers were practicing Christians, some were not, but none of them disavowed Chrstianity although, to be fair, it would have been political suicide to do so at the time.
Well then, Flying Dutchman, you’re perfectlywithin your rights to vote against any Muslim candidates on those grounds. However, it turns out that a majority of voters in Ellison’s district didn’t share your concerns, and a Muslim actually was elected. If he introduces a bill calling for a special tax on non-Muslims I suppose you’ll be vindicated.
1 Timothy 6:1
All those who are under the yoke of slavery must have unqualified respect for their masters, so that the name of God and our teaching is not brought into disrepute.
So it would help your condition if the master found religion? Nuts to that!:
*6:2. But they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but serve them the rather, because they are faithful and beloved, who are partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. *
Tt 2:9
Slaves must be obedient to their masters in everything, and do what is wanted without argument.
1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, you should obey your masters respectfully, not only those who are kind and reasonable but also those who are difficult to please.
Well, the new testament does, the fundamentalists that used that document were defeated in the civil war, while it is true we do not see fundamentalists calling for a return to slavery, it is clear to me that literalists that still exist would not mind if it does return.
You do know why the mermaids wear seashells, don’t you?
Because they look pretty? To cover their breasts?
Let’s hope it’s not for the same reason as in Demolition Man.
I’ve noticed that there are a shocking number of people in the United States who truly believe we are at war with Islam itself. It’s a sad world we live in.
B shells are too small and D shells are too big.
My opening comment in this vein has nothing to do with Muslims, but the contradictions between the US constitution and the law code provided in the Koran. Even if I were American, I would no more be concerned about Ellison’s religion than Lieberman’s. Or Bush’s. And I have no concerns about Ellison’s use of the Koran. I just thought the irony was interesting, and if I were Prager, I could put up a better argument for his cause.
Big deal.
It doesn’t matter what book he swears on. The bible, the koran, a Mickey Mouse comic book; they all have the same meaning and value: nothing. What matters is the oath that is sworn by the person, period.
The attitudes in the Bible, not the literal precepts, did inform those laws. And fundamentalists, despite the title and their claims, are notorious cherry-pickers. I understand the difference between the NT advocating slavery (it doesn’t) and condoning or ignoring it (which sounds closer to the truth), but both are immoral. I don’t know of any fundamentalists who say that women shouldn’t vote, but some of them certainly believe women should be submissive, silent in the church, stay in the kitchen, etc.
Thanks to GIGOBuster for the cites. If those are in context and the Bible has not changed, the NT still advocates things that are against the Constitution. Either way, I think you would agree with me that there’s no chance Ellison will working to institute sharia or Islamic laws. If he was that kind of fundamentalist Muslim, he probably would not have run for Congress.
For what it’s worth, my co-worker from the Sudan says that if he were in Ellison’s place, he would simply place his right hand on the Koran, swear his oath in English, and he would be bound by that.
They don’t mind because they just tell them how to vote.
Well, hardly.
For example, Keith Ellison is the kind of Muslim who supports gay rights, and gay marriage. He voted that way when in the Minnesota Legislature. One of his first endorsements was from the Stonewall DFL GLBT democrats. They endorsed him over an openly gay City Council member, and a County Commissioner with a gay son, and several others. Part of the reason was an article he had written about a year ago in the local black press, where he took on some local black ministers for their anti-gay rhetoric. The article “Would banning gay marriage help us to clothe the naked, heal the sick, or comfort those in prison?” is available online http://www.insightnews.com/search.asp?mode=display&articleID=2101
His views on women’s rights and pro-choice got him endorsement from the Feminist Caucus, Planned Parenthood & Minn NARAL pro-choice PACs.
Rather than supporting any ‘holy war’, he was the candidate supported by the Peace Caucus.
All those are a real far cry from the fundamentalist Muslim positions!
But pretty good ones for the voters of our district.
Link doesn’t work
I know! It was awesome: they didn’t know what hit em, and by the time they got all up in arms about it, it was too late. They’ve been trying to pass a “dedicate all this shit here to Jesus” amendment ever since, but the constitution makes it too hard for them to do so.
Ha!
The founders were theistic rationalists. Most of the major ones were close to ambivalent if not scornful about the actual supernatural doctrines of Christianity: they were instead pretty much universalists, if anything. Lots of scholars have demonstrated how they very often would use whatever term for “God” their audience used (for instance, talking about thanking the “Great Spirit” with Indians). In their private letters, they joked about the ridiculousness of Biblical miracles, scoffed at the superstitious rabble they led, and so on.
Washington is particularly interesting. He went to church with his wife, but he never took communion, and when told that it was causing a stir when he remained seated in the back on communion days, he simply started quietly leaving early or not coming on those days. All his devotions were private, and he seemed to craftily find ways to avoid discussing religion with others to any depth beyond talking about “providence” or “the great ruler of the universe” and such.