Glenn Beck asks America's first Muslim Congressmen to prove he's not the Enemy

[Cypress]

I think you give him too much credit Damo. It seems to me that the only reason he said "i know it's not true" is so people like you would have a way to defend him. If he knows its not true he wouldn't ask the question.

Damn good point.

My wife's doctor is a muslim, and it wouldn't even OCCUR to me to even ask her to prove she's not helping the enemy. EVEN if I preface that question with "well, I know you're not..., but I have to ask anyway!"

 

[Damocles]

Damn good point.

My wife's doctor is a muslim, and it wouldn't even OCCUR to me to even ask her to prove she's not helping the enemy. EVEN if I preface that question with "well, I know you're not..., but I have to ask anyway!"

I may be. Like I said, I really don't know much about him. I was basing it on what was said.

As I also stated, the statement clearly said, "I'm wrong, but I feel this way."

At least to me. It doesn't mean he is my hero, it only means it seemed to be intellectually honest about an emotional stance to me.

 

[AnyOldIron]

I've been to Republican rallies.

What kind of rallies do the Repugnants hold? I'm picturing torchlight....

 

[uscitizen]

Dark blue suits are the predominant dress code at the rallies, white hoods are optional.

 

[Damocles]

Dark blue suits are the predominant dress code at the rallies, white hoods are optional.

I've never seen a white hood at an assembly. I do often see hispanic, asian, and african-americans though.

 

[uscitizen]

Just kidding Damo, well mostly anyway. I was thinking of southern Republicans.

 

[Gaffer]

Just kidding Damo, well mostly anyway. I was thinking of southern Republicans.

No you were thinking of southern democrats.... aka Byrd

 

[Lao Tse]

It is totally appropriate to ask an elected muslim if their loyalty is to the nation or the caliphate. Just like it's also ok to ask jews if their goal in policy is to implement the jewish religious concept of olam ha ba.

 

[Damocles]

If it was their goal to do so what would their answer be?

 

[Lao Tse]

If it was their goal to do so what would their answer be?

I wonder. Let's ask them and see!

 

[doniston]

Great moments in bigotry - NeoCon TV host's Interview with congressmen-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), america's first elected muslim:


GLENN BECK: OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I've been to mosques. I really don't believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly.

With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, "Let's cut and run." And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."

And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.



ELLISON: Well, let me tell you, the people of the Fifth Congressional District know that I have a deep love and affection for my country. There's no one who is more patriotic than I am. And so, you know, I don't need to -- need to prove my patriotic stripes.




http://mediamatters.org/items/200611150004

Glen Beck is a jerk, unfortunately he is a Conservative Jerk. (and I am mostly liberal.) I would much rather he was independent, because when I complain aboiut him I sound too partisan. He is absolutely the worst part of the CNN lineup.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

It is totally appropriate to ask an elected muslim if their loyalty is to the nation or the caliphate. Just like it's also ok to ask jews if their goal in policy is to implement the jewish religious concept of olam ha ba.

We need to ask all Christians running for office if their first loyalty is to the constitution or the Bible. If the latter, they should be immediately disqualified.

 

[Lao Tse]

We need to ask all Christians running for office if their first loyalty is to the constitution or the Bible. If the latter, they should be immediately disqualified.

Christianity does not espouse the creation of a theocracy, as do islam and judaism.

That reality aside, however, why can you only criticize christianity, when it's the most reformed and secularized of them all, and nearly banned in it's own societies of origin, by atheist zealots like yourself?

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Christianity does not espouse the creation of a theocracy, as do islam and judaism.

That reality aside, however, why can you only criticize christianity, when it's the most reformed and secularized of them all, and nearly banned in it's own societies of origin, by atheist zealot like yourself?

You are very wrong to think that Christianity is in any sense superior to the other major religions. Indeed, it isn't even all that different. It's especially similar to Islam, sharing almost all of the same tenets, strengths and weaknesses.

Christianity does indeed espouse the creation of a theocracy. Not all Christians do, certainly, just as not all Muslims do. In both cases, in fact, only a minority of the faithful believe in theocratic government. That doesn't change the fact that, in both religious traditions, those prone to authoritarian, reactionary and repressive social stirctures can find plenty of support for their positions in doctrine.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Christianity does not espouse the creation of a theocracy, as do islam and judaism.

That reality aside, however, why can you only criticize christianity, when it's the most reformed and secularized of them all, and nearly banned in it's own societies of origin, by atheist zealots like yourself?

Besides, the point isn't to debate which religion is "better" than another. The point is that if an elected official is sworn to uphold and support the constitution; it's obvious that any prior loyalty must be suspended. If they can't do that then they're not eligible to serve.

 

[Lao Tse]

Besides, the point isn't to debate which religion is "better" than another. The point is that if an elected official is sworn to uphold and support the constitution; it's obvious that any prior loyalty must be suspended. If they can't do that then they're not eligible to serve.

Right. So it's obvious prior loyalities are suspended? I'd still like them all to be asked whether they believe in the aspects of their religion which relate to theology. Christians too.

 

[Lao Tse]

You are very wrong to think that Christianity is in any sense superior to the other major religions. Indeed, it isn't even all that different. It's especially similar to Islam, sharing almost all of the same tenets, strengths and weaknesses.

Christianity does indeed espouse the creation of a theocracy. Not all Christians do, certainly, just as not all Muslims do. In both cases, in fact, only a minority of the faithful believe in theocratic government. That doesn't change the fact that, in both religious traditions, those prone to authoritarian, reactionary and repressive social stirctures can find plenty of support for their positions in doctrine.

CHristianity does NOT espouse the creation of a theocracy. I dare you produce something from the bible to back that up.

In fact, the main message of christ was a rebellion against the use of religion to create a worldly power structure.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Right. So it's obvious prior loyalities are suspended? I'd still like them all to be asked whether they believe in the aspects of their religion which relate to theology. Christians too.

Naturally. A man cannot serve two masters. No one can support both the constitution and the Bible as their primary loyalty. The Chisters should be forced to choose, publicly.

 

[Lao Tse]

Naturally. A man cannot serve two masters. No one can support both the constitution and the Bible as their primary loyalty. The Chisters should be forced to choose, publicly.

It depends on if the teachings of the religion are necessarily at odds with a secular power structure. It's not as simple as a "loyalty to documents". Islam specifically teaches the muslims must be under muslim government. That's an important difference. Yet you choose to whitewash it, and are more anxious to harrass members of the least theocratic of the two faiths, why is that?

 

[OrnotBitwise]

It depends on if the teachings of the religion are necessarily at odds with a secular power structure. It's not as simple as a "loyalty to documents". Islam specifically teaches the muslims must be under muslim government. That's an important difference. Yet you choose to whitewash it, and are more anxious to harrass members of the least theocratic of the two faiths, why is that?

Where does the Qu'ran specifically state that Muslims must live under an Islamic government? Most Muslims don't believe that's true: it sounds as if you're claiming to know more about Islam than the majority of Muslims.

But, as I said before, this is beside the point.

Whether the constitution is "necessarily at odds" with the teachings of the bible is immaterial. Some interpretations of the bible will inevitably be at odds with the constitution . . . or any other system of secular laws. When these conflicts arise, to which is your primary loyalty? Which takes precedence? If it's not the constitution then you can't honestly serve as an elected official in our government.