What’s the fuss, tell me what’s a-happening…
December 21st, 2006 by Nancy ClevelandWhat’s all the fuss? Keith Ellison is preparing to take his “oath of office†and chooses to do so with the Qu’ran. For one thing, there isn’t a requirement for representatives to use any religious book…Bible or otherwise. What they are required to do is swear to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution does not require anyone to use a religious book…Bible or otherwise. There is nothing to prevent one from using such a book if they so choose, it’s not a public ceremony (though there is a photographic “recordâ€) and Mr. Ellison is choosing to exercise his choice for that instance, which he has every right to do. Others have preceded him by using different texts, others have chosen nothing but the required raising of their right hand while swearing or affirming to uphold the Constitution. This is what we require of our representatives…nothing sacred or holy but simply that they will follow and work for their constituents according to the laws of the land. And there is a mini-uproar! Before getting knickers in a twist what about biding time, waiting to see how this man carries out his office? He has been a State Rep in Minnesota since 2002 and looks to me like he upheld that office well enough since he was recently elected to represent his State in Congress. Let’s see how his record stands in a few years…or at least until the next election before deciding how his choice of swearing in will affect our fate.
To the ‘nay-sayers‘, I would also ask…what then about those who have gone before, using their religious book, or even nothing at all…were seen to be sworn in and, ultimately, thumbed their noses, filled their own pockets or created national scandals thus bringing dishonour to their office? Let the man do his job, illustrate his effectiveness for the good of his country and his own constituents, before assuming he’ll be bringing Islam to us all.
December 21st, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Why are you blogging about a “mini-uproar?” Surely, there must be a big uproar you can write about?
December 21st, 2006 at 1:56 pm
I agree with Nancy that this topic is well worth discussion, because the topic reveals an attitude problem that panders to extreme elements, of which we have too many already. This has already been raised as an issue by those who appear to have nothing more productive to do with their time and energy!
December 21st, 2006 at 3:03 pm
“This has already been raised as an issue by those who appear to have nothing more productive to do with their time and energy!”
Including the blogger, of course.
December 22nd, 2006 at 8:19 pm
From what I hear, most of the Congressmen don’t swear on anything when they are actually sworn in to office in private.
Nancy can talk about whatever she wants to talk about. If you want to talk about something else. Start your own blog.
What we should be having an uproar over is the spread of some of the elements of Islamic culture such as Sharia law. We should be having an uproar over the take over of Samolia by radical Islam. Thanks Clinton. We should be having an uproar over the fact that Sharia law was used in Ontario. That’s right. Sharia law is now here in North America. I am not buying the politically correct rhetoric that we cannot criticize a culture when it is wrong. We must recognize the Islamic culture’s problems. Political correctness will destroy us.
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Thank you, Jordo.
I do agree Sharia law is, or seems to us, barbaric but is it only “PC-ness” which tends to hold the West back from criticism or, perhaps, that our beliefs…and even our horror…isn’t sufficient to accomplish eradication or even change? No-one appreciates outside influences on their culture, regardless of what it is, and while…like you…I’d like nothing more than to see Sharia law relegated to history, perhaps only when every Muslim woman whose practise/culture it is decides “enough”, will it be so. The British banned Sati (another barbarism to Westerners) in India in the 19th. century and, today, most don’t adhere to the practise but it continues nevertheless. Only in little pockets of the country, certainly, but those who believe it’s right and proper do continue…even if against the law. Similarly with bride-burning. I don’t think these are changes that can be brought about by anyone else but those who still accept and live by those beliefs whether they want to or not. I’m thinking change is made best from the inside out, not outside in, but what do you think and how would you effect such change if given the opportunity?
December 23rd, 2006 at 10:13 am
“I’m thinking change is made best from the inside out, not outside in, but what do you think and how would you effect such change if given the opportunity?”
It is complicated. But I agree with you. It must happen from the inside out. If we start to adopt those practices in the west, it will happen from the inside out. That is why the spread of Islam in North America is so startling to me. But I also think it is important for there to be some help from the outside in. The ban on Sati may not have stopped it, but it set Sati back severely. So I think that it is both from the outside in and from the inside out with a stronger emphasis on change from the inside out.
What would I do personally? This is where there is a lot of disagreement. We can agree that there needs to be change, but we may disagree bitterly on how to cause that change. I think that what is really at issue is the essence of the individuals who make up a society. I am not exactly sure what to call that essence. It may just simply be the foundational unproven beliefs that all of us have about life. If we can change someone’s foundation beliefs to include an infinite value on the life of all individuals, maybe that society would be less likely to endorse some of these barbaric practices. But then the question is, “How do we change those foundational beliefs?” If these foundation beliefs are assumed and unproven and we are trying to replace them with different assumed beliefs, then we cannot rely on reason. In other words, we cannot simply convince them to change. This is where religion comes in since it deals the most with these foundation beliefs. If there is one true religion with a real god that actually has the power to change people, that would cause real change from the inside out.
That is what I would do personally. And that is what some of my friends are doing in India now. I believe that the God of the Bible is a real God who has the power to change people. The Bible through Christ’s death on the cross places the necessary infinite value on individuals to cause the change you and I are looking for. That is why I would rather send an army of missionaries than an army of soldiers. I think that religious beliefs are the only ones strong enough to change those foundation unproven beliefs. The way it works is that there is an initial change from the outside in when a missionary tells someone about Christ and that person is changed. Then there is a change from the inside out as the new believer tells others about his new faith and starts an indigenous local church. As the church grows, it will change the essence of society. That will only happen though if the church is truly religious and not simply cultural. That is why “Christian” societies sometimes do unbiblical things.
I need to go celebrate Christmas now, and I will not have any internet for about a week. So I won’t be able to respond to this thread anymore. I hope you found my comment helpful or at least thought provoking.
December 24th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Jordo wrote: “We must recognize the Islamic culture’s problems. Political correctness will destroy us.”
You reveal quite well your political bias here Jordo.
Political correctness works both ways.
For example: Compare and contrast the cultural/social problems caused by Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists. 20 points
And since you raise the problems of Somalia and blame Clinton, you may wish to comment on the current situation there: The Ethopians (Christians) have invaded Somalia to battle the rebel Council of Supreme Islamic Courts who are backed by Eritrea (Islamists). We have two nations at war on the sovereign soil of neither, and the Somali civilians suffer once again. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=0aae3af7-23a3-4f0e-809b-2696e7d903b6&k=71127
Is Bush to blame for the current situation in Somalia? Is Bush to blame for the current situation in Darfur? Was Clinton to blame for the past situation in Somalia, or was Bush-41 to blame? Each situation is quite complex, which is an excellent argument for a strengthened and well supported UN to be the prime mover in attempting to resolve these complex issues. Partisan finger pointing accomplishes very little.
…admin edit…
And one final point, we have no right to send either an army of soldiers or an army of missionaries into a sovereign nation, unless, in the case of the army, we are invited in by a properly constituted government. It is not the business of our government to send missionaries anywhere!