Is it fair for Republicans to go after Keith Ellison for being a Muslim?

[RZM]

With the Mittster's Mormonism a hot topic around here, I was wondering what people thought about criticizing our sole Muslim legislator for his faith.

11 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	2 (18%)
	No
	9 (82%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[onehandle]

1. Keith Ellison doesn't bury the fact that he is a Muslim.

Mittens buries his named faith like a cat buries a turd in a litter box.

Coward.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. So you liked Santorum's constant citations better?

just askin'

[librechik]

2. islam is a real faith--Mormonism is a cult. n/t

[cynatnite]

6. How do you tell the difference?

Why is one considered a "real" faith and the other a "cult"?

[librechik]

16. since all religion is BS, IMO, it's funny you ask

but just for giggles I'll choose a time/history test here--islam around for thousands of years with a billion faithful, Mormonism around for a couple of hundred years, not so many followers, with a secretive, nepotistic power structure, and an origination story that makes other BS origination stories seem like, well Gospel.

[slackmaster]

22. Islam has NOT been around for thousands of years. Muhammad started writing his "revelations" in 610.

That's 610 A.D. Christianity has been around for hundreds of years longer than Islam.

[librechik]

25. right, give or take half a millennium. You get my point.

[azurnoir]

34. Interesting that you would equate Mormonism to all of Christianity

Mormonism classifies itself within Christianity, but as a distinct restored dispensation. According to Mormons, a Great Apostasy began in Christianity not long after the ascension of Jesus Christ,[8] marked with the corruption of Christian doctrine by Greek and other philosophies,[9] and followers dividing into different ideological groups.[10] Additionally, Mormons claim the martyrdom of the Apostles led to a loss of Priesthood authority to administer the church and its ordinances.[11][12]

Mormons believe that God re-established the early Christian church as found in the New Testament through Joseph Smith.[13] In particular, Mormons believe that angels such as Peter, James, John, and John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and others and bestowed various Priesthood authorities on them.[14] Mormons believe that their church is the "only true and living church" because of the divine authority restored through Smith, and that Smith and his successors are modern prophets who receive revelation from God to guide the church. They maintain that other religions have a portion of the truth and are guided by the Light of Christ.

This page was last modified on 15 May 2012 at 01:34.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism

but otherwise Mormonism is a sect loosely based on Christianity that's been around for 170 to 180 years

[slackmaster]

38. That's absurd. I did no such thing.

[azurnoir]

44. actually yes you did here with this quote in comment #22

"That's 610 A.D. Christianity has been around for hundreds of years longer than Islam."

[slackmaster]

48. I just stated a fact. You are free to mis-interpret it to your heart's content.

Islam and Christianity are not the same religion.

The Mormon church (LDS) is a version of Christianity.

[azurnoir]

50. misinterpreted you pointing out that Christianity is older than Islam in a discussion of LDS vs

Islam? well then exactly what did you mean if it was not to equate LDS with all of Christianity?

[slackmaster]

51. LDS does equate with all of Christianity, in the same way the Protestant flavors of Christianity do.

They're all a little newer than Islam, but your original claim that Islam has been around for thousands of years is a smoldering ruin.

Writers who abuse hyperbole deserve to be taken out and shot.

[azurnoir]

52. Lol it was another poster entirely who made that claim about Islam

but thanks all the same

[slackmaster]

54. Oops, my bad.

Sorry.

[RZM]

23. There are some superficial similarities in the origins of Mormonism and Islam

Both were founded by a prophet who claimed instruction from an angel. Joseph Smith claimed that Moroni showed him where the golden plates were, while Mohammed claimed that Gabriel brought him the word of God in a cave.

[demosincebirth]

28. Both also, took multiple wives. That, I think, is one of the reasons these religions were

started. Christianity allowed only one wife.

[RZM]

37. I'm pretty sure polygamy was already practiced in the Arab world before Mohammed had his visions n/t

[demosincebirth]

49. Remember, that Emperor Constantine made Christianity the sole religion of the Roman Empire and

that included all of northern Africa and the Arabian peninsula. Christianity was the religion at the time and was spreading slowly eastward.

[ellisonz]

57. Partially Incorrect

The Roman Empire under Constantine did not include any of the Arabian peninsula much less the area of Mecca and Medina. The Arabian peninsula was tribal and was never converted in any part to Christianity unlike Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia.

[demosincebirth]

60. Alright, I concede on the Arabian Peninsula.

[RZM]

59. Actually he didn't do that

Constantine accepted Christianity himself (though he wasn't baptized until right before he died) and did turn more towards persecution of pagans later in his reign. But he never made Christianity the sole state religion. That didn't happen until the Edict of Thessalonica, which was proclaimed over 40 years after his death.

It's also argued that Thessalonica was less about ending paganism and more about forcing Arian Christians to accept the Nicene version of the faith.

Nevertheless, it is true that many people in the modern Middle East were Christian at the time of Mohammed's birth. Though I think they were much more common in North Africa and the Levant than in places like the Arabian peninsula (though there were some there too). As Ellison pointed out, Arabia was not a formal part of the Roman empire. In any case, Mohammed himself was of course much more hostile to pagans than 'people of the book.'

[ellisonz]

62. +1000

Because history is just that awesome...

[HiPointDem]

63. lds churches have 14 million members. not 1.5 billion, but still a sizeable number.

[LanternWaste]

24. Start by cracking open a few books

"How do you tell the difference?" Aside from common sense, one could...

Start by cracking open a few books.

One could start with the better known contemporary texts, 'Sociology of Religion' by Weber and a good follow-up text, Comparative Studies in Sociology by Cousineau. If feeling especially daring and clever by half, one may even try the classics, from 'First Principles of the Reformation by Martin Luther to relevant Greek and Hellenistic annotated primary source material.

On a bad day, when feeling lazy or mentally spent, even a common dictionary allows one the critical and relevant differences.


But I would imagine that an intractable dogma which denies any relevant difference between cult or religion will be rigidly adhered to-- if for no other reason than it's simply more convenient that way...

[Arugula Latte]

31. Well,

ALL religion is a nutty mixture of cultism, mythology, irrationality and superstition. Christianity and Islam just happen to have the numbers to throw their weight around. You can dress 'em up, but they still oink like pigs. It's all nonsense and they're all cults --the cult of Jesus, the cult of Mohammed, the cult of Joseph Smith, the cult of Rael, the cult of Applewhite, whatever ... Some cults are just bigger than others.

[Posteritatis]

32. The personal like or dislike of the person making the distinction, usually. (nt)

[TheManInTheMac]

11. Good one!

[truebrit71]

46. They are ALL cults....

...some are newer and more bizarre than others...

[matt819]

3. Sure

As long as he can reciprocate, though he's too much of a gentleman to do so.

[hifiguy]

7. Those of us in Keith's district know what he is:

A good and decent man who stands up for the ordinary citizen and pursues the common good over private profit. Which is why he will be re-elected until he decides to retire.

[azurnoir]

36. +1 n/t

[trotsky]

40. I consider it a distinct honor to have been represented by both Paul Wellstone...

and Keith Ellison. This atheist is very proud to call Keith Ellison my Representative. He fights for what I believe.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. What hifiguy said

Keith comes from a middle class background, attended two state universities (Wayne State for undergraduate, University of Minnesota for law school), worked as a civil rights lawyer, and never made money firing people or hiding money in the Cayman Islands.

Islam has many good practices, such as charity and equality of all races.

The Mormons began as a racist religion and practice charity mostly for their own members.

[get the red out]

4. "Go after"

There is also a difference between "go after" and learn more about the influence of a person's religion on how they would operate in respect to their duties as an elected official.

BTW, Mitten's worship at the alter of the Corporatocracy is quite worth "going after". Mormonism isn't his only "religion".

[cthulu2016]

5. As the question is asked? I voted Yes.

How can anyone's deepest beliefs not be fair game?

And if voters will not vote for a Muslim (not the case in Ellison's district) and your opponent is in fact a Muslim then there would be no reason not to point it out.

I doubt that most RW religion-based critiques of Ellison are themselves fair, or valid. I am not saying the particular attacks are fair.

But in the genral language of the OP headline... in conceptual terms... is it okay to talk about a candidate's beliefs and convictions negatively? Of course it is... particularly if the candidate relies on his faith for any manner of guidance.

Now, it may not be politically SMART to go after someone over faith. That's a case-by-case thing and outside the scope here.

[RZM]

8. Good points

I think people who argue against using religion on one's opponent are probably divided for the reasons you said. Some believe that faith should be left off of the table out of respect, while others believe that it should be left off of the table because it isn't a winner. And some believe both.

[cynatnite]

9. I don't think anyone's religion is the business of the American people...

Of course, that all changes when they use their religion to attempt to shape policy. Then that person's religion is up for grabs so to speak.

It's entirely possible to govern without having to drag your religion out at the drop of a hat. We've seen plenty of religious people who do just fine without wearing their religion on their sleeve.

Of course, there are quite a few (repubs for the most part) who are unable to speak unless they invoke their religion. When it begins to affect someone who does not subscribe to the same religion or even the same views in a negative way, that is when we must speak up. Otherwise, we run a risk of losing valuable freedoms if we don't fight this.

on edit: I am saying no because I haven't seen Congressman Ellison using his religion in an attempt to shape policy.

[cthulu2016]

14. All religious people say it is definitive of themselves

In a democracy, how could what is definitive of a candidate be none of anyone's business?

I am an atheist. If I were running for high office I would expect to be asked about it, and in detail. People would want, and have a right, to know why I am an atheist, whether atheism is valid given the evidence, and what it says about my worldview and thought processes.

That's all entirely reasonable, to me.

Why would or should that be different if my beliefs were supernatural in nature?

[Johonny]

15. I agree

[myrna minx]

10. Those of us who live in Rep Ellison's disctict already know what a fine man he is and

appreciate how he represents us. Rep Ellison has the grace to take the nastiness of the likes of Glenn Beck et AL and pay it no heed.

Wanting to vet a Presidetial canidate on his religious beliefs is fair game - especially when said religion is quite politically active in opposing civil rights for a great number of our citizens.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

12. The question should be whether they question his faith in a fair manner

Just informing the public that Ellison is a Muslim and asking him how it affects his views is completely fair. That's not "going after". If an Evangelical Christian were running for office, I'd want to know if he thought the Earth was only 6,000 years old, whether he believed in evolution or global warming, and whether he had any respect for science. If Ellison supported radical anti-intellectual, anti-female notions prevalent among some Muslim fundamentalists, I'd really want to know and I think those are perfectly fair questions. Suggesting that he's a terrorist just because he's a Muslim would not be fair, particularly if he already exhaustively explained that he is not that kind of Muslim, not a jihadist.

[cthulu2016]

13. Precisely. Good answer.

[11 Bravo]

17. A better question: Have they and will they continue to attack Ellison regarding his faith?

I've been a political junkie for most of my 62 years, and I have never seen unilateral disarmament carry an argument or an election.

[HockeyMom]

18. If he can keep his religion OUT of his politics,

that is fine. I would rather have that than a right wing Christian who thinks it is his DUTY to legislate his religion.

[SpartanDem]

19. Is it is fair? No

they shouldn't go after his religion, but they do anyway. Life isn't as long they go after Obama and Ellison, Mitt is fair game.

[NCTraveler]

20. I voted yes.

I feel that is acceptable to question what impact his faith will have on his decisions/agenda. He represents a large group of people.

[slackmaster]

21. Of course it's fair

I think Keith Ellison can easily make a case that he doesn't buy into the extreme views, misogyny, etc. of the radical elements of the Muslim faith. Just as JFK did when he was accused by Republicans (and many Democrats) of planning to allow the Pope to rule our country.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Yes.

As much as we are going after Romney, Eiilison is just as fair a target in that area.

If Romney were a Jack Mormon, I would not be as nearly concerned about it as I am.

[kelly1mm]

27. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it is OK to

go after Romney's faith (or the President's, or Kennedy's ect...) then it is OK to go after Rep. Ellison's faith. Since I think Romney's Mormon faith is an OK issue to "go after" it would be hypocritical to say another person's faith is off limits.

[Starry Messenger]

29. Yes, of course.

The difference is that he is informed by his faith to work for social justice, and this shines through when he is braced on the topic. If the Republicans don't choose to believe him, that is their lookout.

Romney is a rather high-up figure in his church, which has been involved in a lot of shady political shenanigans in the last 5 years. The more outre' aspects of Mormonism actually tend to overshadow their more straight-forward backroom power plays, which deserve more attention.

[Egalitarian Thug]

30. Yes. That's American politics, always has been. If you don't want to fight this battle,

don't go into politics.

[emilyg]

33. yes

[azurnoir]

35. I voted other

IMO there is enough to 'go after' about Mittens to not even have to mention his religion

[lynne]

39. Well, of course -

- no matter the party or their policies, religion is now on the table for everyone. Swing away!

[Marr]

41. It's not nice? No. Do they do it? Yes.

And it shouldn't have anyone clutching their pearls. Politics is ugly. You have to assume your opponent is going to use everything they can-- and frankly, if they don't, they're an idiot.

[dmallind]

42. If it may affect his votes and bills, yes. Why not? Same for any religion or philosophy

If a candidate were a Luddite, wouldn't it make sense to raise that issue before they had a chance of being on a Commerce or technology committee? If an avowed eugenics proponent wouldn't you want to know before they got to vote on AFDC-like bills? Why should a devotion to an imaginary, or at the very least metaphysical, precept be off limits when devotion to contingent ones are not?

[99Forever]

47. Fair? Not fair?

Since when do Teapublicans give a rat's butt about fair?

This is politics, not a freakin' high school debate club. If things were "fair" the banksters wouldn't OWN our government and it would work for the betterment of ALL of us. The stakes have real world consequences and fair isn't even n the mix.

[AzDar]

53. If his religion were making him a hateful, bigoted, predatory prick, and this was evident in his

policies...absolutely.

[progressivebydesign]

55. is this one of those "gotcha" polls??

In my many years at DU, these polls are usually followed up with another poll "Is it fair for Democrats to go after Romney for being a Mormon?"

[RZM]

56. That depends on how you look at it. It was more a reaction to the discussion of Romney's Mormonism

As I pointed out in the OP. Keith Ellison kept popping into my head when I read those threads. So I made a poll about it.

[ellisonz]

58. No, absolutely not.

The Constitution clearly specifies there is no religious test for office, why we would want to protect a de facto test is beyond my wisdom.

[CreekDog]

61. I get the point here, it's just that all the conservatives here are taking a certain side

that they weren't very interested in a few years ago when it was being used the other way.

[TheKentuckian]

64. Since they go after folks that aren't Muslim for being such, I'd guess they wouldn't hesitate

May as well ponder if gravity is fair. It is what it is.