Tea Party Founder wants Muslims out of Congress

[Darias]

Thu Oct 28, 12:13 pm ET

Tea party founder defends attack on congressman’s Muslim faith
By Rachel Rose Hartman

Judson Phillips, founder of the Tea Party Nation, suggested this weekend that Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) be voted out of Congress for being too liberal and too radical--and because, Phillips said, he's a Muslim who supports terrorists.

And Phillips says he's not about to apologize for that last incendiary charge.

The controversy began when Phillips wrote the following message to supporters (it's unedited and contains several mistakes, including the claim that Ellison is the only Muslim in Congress; Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana is also Muslim):

Ellison is one of the most radical members of congress. He has a ZERO rating from the American Conservative Union. He is the only Muslim member of congress. He supports the Counsel for American Islamic Relations, HAMAS and has helped congress send millions of tax dollars to terrorists in Gaza.


Phillips sent a follow-up email to supporters this week reiterating his belief that Muslims deserve voters' scrutiny but also suggesting that the liberal media misinterpreted the intent of his original comments.

"Should Muslims be denied the right to run for office because of their religion? No," Phillips wrote, according to the letter, posted by the Minnesota Independent. "The Constitution specifies that no religious test can be used to exclude someone from public office. But when someone adheres to an ideology that says kill people who disagree with you, that is something voters should seriously consider when they vote."

He later added: "I am not going to apologize because I'm bothered by a religion that says kill the infidel, especially when I am the infidel. ... I learned everything I needed to know about tolerance on September 11th."

_____
For more, read SOURCE

Questions for Debate:

1. Is Islam a religion?
2. Should Keith Ellison be voted out of office because of his religion?
3. Should the Constitution be amended to stipulate that Islam is not a religion, so that Ellison can be fired without violating the First Amendment?
4. Is Ellison a terrorist because he wanted to be sworn in whilst using Jefferson's Koran?
5. Was Thomas Jefferson a terrorist for owning a Koran?
6. Will you vote for the Tea Party this November?

[nimesh0775]

Questions for Debate:

1. Is Islam a religion?
2. Should Keith Ellison be voted out of office because of his religion?
3. Should the Constitution be amended to stipulate that Islam is not a religion, so that Ellison can be fired without violating the First Amendment?
4. Is Ellison a terrorist because he wanted to be sworn in whilst using Jefferson's Koran?
5. Was Thomas Jefferson a terrorist for owning a Koran?
6. Will you vote for the Tea Party this November?

1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No, because I live in the UK

[Guest]

I know he's speaking about the Qu'ran. Speaking from the Bible, I could show you scenarios where it'd be ok to dislike, hate, kill, etc a group of people. The vast majority of christians, fortunately, choose to ignore at least the killing part. In fact, christians ignore a lot of parts of the Bible, especially the ones that have rules and all that. Yet the same christians that don't endorse polygamy or slavery (even though they're in the Bible) seem to think that muslims must inevitably agree with and act upon every single word in the Qu'ran.

Though I disagree with your interpretation on the Bible text and what it means in context I will abstain from commenting on it and point out that the subject is Muslims.

[Lux]

Where did Jesus say that?

If Jesus didn't say it himself then it's not part of Christianity at all? We could save a lot of paper by taking A LOT of text off the christian Bible then.

That's because it doesn't apply to Christianity, which may be why Christians aren't doing such Muslim-style acts.

The christians of other times seem to disagree with you there. For many centuries those things were considered part of Christianity, perhaps because they were (and continue to be, without many people objecting to it) part of the text from which christians claim to get their morality. The Bible is the holy book of Christianity, and as long as christians are not willing to get the "irrelevant" parts removed, they are accepting them as part of their religion.

What the Bible describes it doesn't prescribe. All you're doing is showing your ignorance of Christian theology.

All you are doing is constructing straw mans. Christians don't do everything the Bible says, a lot of them don't actually agree with or follow every word in the Bible. Yet, for some reason, some of those same christians think that all muslims necessarily adhere to or act upon every single word in the Qu'ran, which is not the case.

[micatala]

I would largely agree that Christianity on the whole does not call for violence, but there are verses indicating things like "those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king, come and slay them before me"

You need to look at these passages in context. This one probably refers to the generation that rejected Jesus and what happened to them in 70 AD.

That's one interpretation, but if you are willing to impose your interpretations of the Koran on Muslim's, why should anyone give your interpretation of the Bible any credence.

or that there will be people cast outside "weaping and gnashing their teeth."

Refers to the final Judgement.

That's one interpretation, but if you are willing to impose your interpretations of the Koran on Muslim's, why should anyone give your interpretation of the Bible any credence.

There is also, regardles of how you read the Bible in general or the teachings of Jesus as a whole, a horrendous history of Christian violence, often against fellow Christians, especially those deemed to be heretical.

Those bad deeds of centuries ago where done in spite of the teachings of Jesus, the Jihadists do their crimes because of the word and deed of the 'prophet'.

That's one interpretation, but if you are willing to impose your interpretations of the Koran on Muslim's, why should anyone give your interpretation of the Bible any credence.

To me, both the teachings as they exists and the history of how those teachings are applied are relevant. Fortunately, Christians I think have largely gotten better at following the better of the Biblical teachings. I will point out many, though, still want us to follow what I think are the more negative teachings, many from the OT.

Many? Where? I've never personally met any.

Firstly, who you have or have not met is not a particularly good measure.

Secondly, there are those, not a huge number, like Fred Phelps, who think God hates fags, and some support killing them or at least discriminating against them.

Some churches say women should not teach in church, nor have equal rights in society.

The number of Christians adhering to such views is probably small and getting smaller. However, my main point is one can support such views using the Bible, and that there are some believers who actually do hold to such views. I think we agree it would inappropriate to tar all Christians as adhering to such views based on either the Bible itself or the views of some Christians.

Same with Muslims.

On Islam, I can't speak authoritatively, but I think it is quite inapprorpriate for Christians to selectively quote the Koran without following the interpretive practices of those who actually practice the religion. That would be like atheists claiming Christians are all backward and violent because of verses about stoning adulterers or Elisha having bears eat some rude kids etc.

A moot point, as we're not stoning adulterers (that's Islam) or having bears eat kids, and I have never heard a Christian promote those out of context ideas. If Jihadists claim their actions are supported by the word and deed of the 'prophet' who are you as a non-Muslim to tell them their interpretation is wrong?

If you are willing to impose your interpretations of the Koran on Muslim's, why should anyone give your interpretation of the Bible any credence.

And again, whether anyone today is practicing these teachings does not negate my point. The point is we have gotten past a lot of this, largely due to secular influences arising out of the enlightenment. Islamic culture is not there yet. I think we should encourage the moderates as a way to help. I think denigrating and insulting all Muslims through over-generalizations and imposition of caricatures of their religion on their reputation is not only not fair, it is not productive.

True enough, but that is today. We used to torture, burn at the stake, and yes, even behead "heretics."

Again, all going against the teachings of Jesus. Note when the disciples asked Jesus to stop another group because they were not one of them, Jesus replied 'Whoever is not against us is for us'.

That's one interpretation, but if you are willing to impose your interpretations of the Koran on Muslim's, why should anyone give your interpretation of the Bible any credence.

To the extent some Muslims have not, we do need to help them do so. Empowering moderate Muslims, instead of putting all Muslims in the same basket, seems a reasonable way to do that.

The 'moderates' seem to be a small and shrinking minority, and IMHO opinion are intimidated into silence.

Ironic. Who is intimidating the moderate Imam who wants to speak up for moderation and reconciliation in New York?


Hmmmmmm.

Endemic does not mean universal.

I stand by my use of that word, defined as "Endemic, in a broad sense, can mean "belonging" or "native to", "characteristic of", or "prevalent in" a particular geography, group, field, area, or environment; native to an area or scope." Bold added.

The harrassment and persecution of Christians is going on all over the Muslim world, where they are treated like second class citizens. I recently saw a story from Indonesia (supposedly moderate, at least according to Obama) where a prison inmate became a Christian and was severely beaten and threatened with death by the prison officials. The Koran says if a Muslim discards Islam, kill him. How do you misinterpret that?

That's one interpretation, but if you are willing to impose your interpretations of the Koran on Muslim's, why should anyone give your interpretation of the Bible any credence.


The Bible says to stone adulterers and others. How is anyone who says that is a Christian belief engaged in misinterpretation?


Was it not "endemic" not so long ago among American Christians that blacks should not be treated equally? That women should not be allowed to vote? That slavery was justified?

And again, how are we going to contribute to changing the situation positively?

I'm not sure we can. Some situations must be coped with. Remember that since 611 AD Islam has been in a violent struggle with non-Muslims with the exception of the recent 300 year hiatus. I think we are returning to the status quo.

Well, in the words of Bob Dylan, "get out of the new road if you can't lend a hand."

I agree some situations must be coped with. We do have to cope with the terrorists. However, you have not said how mischaracterizing Muslims or the Muslim religion is necessary or even helpful in doing this.




Please explain how labeling all Muslims as adhering to an inherently violent religion, imposing your views of their religion on them, associating the moderates with the extremists, etc., is in any way productive to coping with terrorism.

I see no positive effect to over-generalizing and labeling all Muslims as radical or anti-Jewish or anti-Christian. Can you?

And I see no benefit to sugarcoating the reality and not facing the fact we face a serious, long-term problem.

Equivocation. One does not need to falsely characterize a religion or its adherents in order to avoid sugar-coating. WHere have I ever said we do not face a serious long term problem?





I'll repeat, how is mischaracterizing a religion or its adherents helpful in solving this long term problem?