First Muslim elected to Congress

[shesulsa]

MSNBC News Services
Updated: 8:14 p.m. PT Nov 7, 2006

MINNEAPOLIS - Voters elected a black Democrat as the first Muslim in Congress on Tuesday after a race in which he advocated quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and made little mention of his faith.
Keith Ellison, a 43-year-old defense attorney and state representative, was projected to defeat two rivals to succeed retiring Democrat Martin Sabo in a seat that has been held by Democrats since 1963.
Ellison, who converted to Islam as a 19-year-old college student in his native Detroit, won with the help of Muslims among a coalition of liberal, anti-war voters. "We were able to bring in Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists," he said. "We brought in everybody."

Link to full article

 

[Makalakumu]

Good for MN for leading the way in this nation once again. I think that Muslims, as a whole, have been in some serious need of representation for a very long time. I hope that Mr. Ellison will do well in representing for the 5th district.

 

[Ping898]

He wil be held to a very high standard, I hope he is equal to the challange

 

[Makalakumu]

With all of the talk a few years ago regarding a Muslim Internment, I feel that Mr. Ellison's election is especially important.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

This could be either very good.............or very bad......................

 

[Marginal]

He wil be held to a very high standard, I hope he is equal to the challange

The Part of Faith wasn't. Silly to hold a Muslim to a higher standard than that.

 

[Ping898]

The Part of Faith wasn't. Silly to hold a Muslim to a higher standard than that.

I suppose I see it as the same way the first ______ (fill in the blank: Muslim, Jew, Black, Asian, Woman, Gay...) in an important position in the past has seemed to be held to a higher standard than the usual person in the position. If suddenly he is found to be taking bribes it will set back the next Muslim running for office a lot farther than the last white guy found in office to be taking bribes did to the rest of the elected white guys....

 

[Tez3]

You could do what we do, anyone standing for election as a Member of Parliament is assumed to be a 'politician' (that's a swear word sorry) and we naturally assume the worst of them. We take it for granted they fiddle their expenses, have affairs ( it's compulsory in France though) lie to the electorate, get involved in dodgy business deals, line their pockets and when they are elected out go on to the boards of the companies they have helped. It's cynical of course but the really sad thing is we are never disappointed. This is written tongue in cheek but I'm afraid to say there's more truth in there than is comfortable. The electorate don't expect good people to stand for office any more.Blair is being questioned by the police about the cash for honours scandal along with most MPs of all parties. The idea of public service died a long time ago with Maggie, this is the 'me' times.

 

[michaeledward]

Representative Ellison should be a trivia question for the other 49 states in the nation, and little known among the other seven districts in Minnesota.

What should be news, and offensive to every American is this.

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."

While all Americans are entitled to their own point of view, even if their point of view is that of a bigot. Those points of view should not be broadcast in any official manner by news outlets (even cable news outlets).

Perhaps we have not learned anything from Doctor King. How did that 'I have a dream speech go?"

 

[Andy Moynihan]

And that'll be my first red flag that it's gonna head into "very bad" land.

The one thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.

*shakes head*

 

[Cryozombie]

Those points of view should not be broadcast in any official manner by news outlets (even cable news outlets).

I agree, We need to censor the news media. What Constitutional rights Michaeledward Bush? Er, I mean... :xtrmshock:xtrmshock:xtrmshock

 

[Makalakumu]

I agree, We need to censor the news media. What Constitutional rights Michaeledward Bush? Er, I mean... :xtrmshock:xtrmshock:xtrmshock

What is the difference between the statement Michael told us about and these statements...

"God made the negro race to serve the whites. If we give them their freedom, there will be chaos!"

"The jews secretly run every aspect of your lives. Through international banking, they plan to take over the world."

"Mexicans are flooding into this country and even now are mixing with whites in the southern states. They are trying to breed us out."

"Homosexuality is a mental disorder and it leads directly to pedophilia."

Should statements like these be broadcast on our airwaves? Initially, I would say no. Our country has worked so long and hard to promote equal rights for all and we haven't even reached that point yet. I think it would be a step backward.

Although, I can see an argument for allowing such speech...but then we should allow equal time to people who feel differently...so people can hear the contrast and make their own decision. This will not happen in this case, however. Bigotry against muslims is far to chic in this country.

 

[mrhnau]

While all Americans are entitled to their own point of view, even if their point of view is that of a bigot. Those points of view should not be broadcast in any official manner by news outlets (even cable news outlets).

I'm sorry? Aren't you the same guy that has been railing against the infringement of constitutional rights?

Should statements like these be broadcast on our airwaves? Initially, I would say no. Our country has worked so long and hard to promote equal rights for all and we haven't even reached that point yet. I think it would be a step backward.

Although, I can see an argument for allowing such speech...but then we should allow equal time to people who feel differently...so people can hear the contrast and make their own decision. This will not happen in this case, however. Bigotry against muslims is far to chic in this country.

Well, if you -want- social change, there needs to be a social discussion. Disallowing discussion from groups you don't agree with is hardly a discussion at all. For instance, if you want homosexual marriage, then allow those opposed to state their views. Also allow those in favor to speak up too. Thats part of what democracy is all about. Criticize what is going on if you don't like it, but also speak in favor of it if you do like it. Either way, be able to defend your position. Just keep it civil

As time goes, the social conscious changes... While people were passionate about keeping slavery, you hardly hear anyone in the US in favor of it any more. While many fought about racial equality, you hardly hear anyone in the US opposing it anymore (may differ on how to effect it or what to do about it, but thats different). Over time these things will work out... it may be the case that in 50 years we don't give a second thought to a Muslim being elected. It does not make big news anymore when a Jew is elected, or a Roman Catholic. Given time, things will smooth out. I'm not suprised its happened in the past, given that Islam is a minority religion. I am a bit suprised it happened now, considering the recent headlines in the news. Personally, I don't care what religion (or sex or color) he is as long as he does a good job and represents those that elected him... I just hope some crazy does not gun him down! Sadly, there are nuts out there that might consider that patriotic or something :idunno:

 

[michaeledward]

I agree, We need to censor the news media. What Constitutional rights Michaeledward Bush? Er, I mean... :xtrmshock:xtrmshock:xtrmshock

Cryozombie, I have no problem with you making such a bigotted statement, if you so choose.

Mr. Beck is a paid host for the broadcast network. This has the unfortunate impact of adding 'official' weight to his idiotic statement. And please don't mistake this comment for "news". It is commentary. What Representative-elect Ellison says is news.

Why do reporters think we give a damn about what they think?

It parallels to what is said in a courtroom. What the laywer says when interviewing a witness is not evidence. What the person on the witness stand answers is evidence.

If the only think 24 hour broadcasting and 565 digital channels provides us, as a society, is opinions of narrow minded pretty faces, we probably don't need it.

What was it the Prophet Bruce said (circa '92) ...

57 channels and nothing on . . .

 

[michaeledward]

I'm sorry? Aren't you the same guy that has been railing against the infringement of constitutional rights?

Yes.

And I will defend Mr. Beck's right to be an ******* under the United States Constitution.

What I will rail against, is a person acting in an official capacity, on a theoretical news network, from advancing a bigotted position. Mr. Beck could have structured a question concerning Mr. Ellison's religion in such a way as to not implicate him as a terrorist. He was just elected to one of the most prestigious legislative bodies in the history of the planet. Mr. Beck's question, structured as it was to show disrespect, because of a persons faith is inappropriate for a 'news' company. The question wasn't asked by Letterman or Leno.

 

[Cryozombie]

Cryozombie, I have no problem with you making such a bigotted statement, if you so choose.

So, am I biggoted for agreeing with you we should take away his constitutional right to free press, making you a bigot also, or am I a bigot for pointing out your Hypocracy, calling Bush wrong for taking away our consitutional rights while you scream his should be taken?

Whichever it is, I don't mind you calling me names, Mike, we both know which of us is wrong, its ok if you use mudslinging to try and save face.

 

[Cryozombie]

What I will rail against, is a person acting in an official capacity, on a theoretical news network, from advancing a bigotted position. Mr. Beck could have structured a question concerning Mr. Ellison's religion in such a way as to not implicate him as a terrorist. He was just elected to one of the most prestigious legislative bodies in the history of the planet. Mr. Beck's question, structured as it was to show disrespect, because of a persons faith is inappropriate for a 'news' company. The question wasn't asked by Letterman or Leno.

This is fine, Mike, but if that is the case, dont EVER... EVER... cite commentary again if it supports your arguments... fact only.

Lets see how long that lasts.

 

[michaeledward]

So, am I biggoted for agreeing with you we should take away his constitutional right to free press, making you a bigot also, or am I a bigot for pointing out your Hypocracy, calling Bush wrong for taking away our consitutional rights while you scream his should be taken?

Whichever it is, I don't mind you calling me names, Mike, we both know which of us is wrong, its ok if you use mudslinging to try and save face.

It was not my intention, nor do I think it was my action, to call you a name, nor to sling mud.

Does Mr. Beck have the right of free speech? Of course.

Does Mr. Beck's employer have the right to publish freely? Of course.

But let's not assume that Mr. Beck is the 'PRESS'. His employer, the company is the 'PRESS'. And they have the right to be bigotted if they wish. But, should they exercise that choice, let's not confuse them with 'NEWS'.

If these are the choice being made by these people. Let us be clear and remove the first N from the broadcaster in question. They are no longer a 'NEWS' network. They are an 'Opinion' network. Or they are a 'Commentary' network.


Lastly, I don't think I have called for anyone's rights to be taken away. I will gladly look at any references, and either a) admit I was wrong or b) attempt to clarify what I meant.

What I have called for the exposition of discernment where there is obfuscation.

 

[CoryKS]

Representative Ellison should be a trivia question for the other 49 states in the nation, and little known among the other seven districts in Minnesota.

What should be news, and offensive to every American is this.



While all Americans are entitled to their own point of view, even if their point of view is that of a bigot. Those points of view should not be broadcast in any official manner by news outlets (even cable news outlets).

Perhaps we have not learned anything from Doctor King. How did that 'I have a dream speech go?"

I didn't see the Beck interview and without the context it's difficult to see whether or not Beck was out of line. Religion aside, Ellison does have a rather controversial background with his past involvement with NOI and his ongoing affiliation with CAIR. A certain saying about lying down with dogs comes to mind. For myself, I'll take a position of "trust, but verify".

 

[michaeledward]

I didn't see the Beck interview and without the context it's difficult to see whether or not Beck was out of line. Religion aside, Ellison does have a rather controversial background with his past involvement with NOI and his ongoing affiliation with CAIR. A certain saying about lying down with dogs comes to mind. For myself, I'll take a position of "trust, but verify".

What is "NOI"?

And why not link to the wiki entry on the organization ... rather than the wiki article on the criticisms on the organization?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations

Or perhaps even better, link to the website of the organization.

http://www.cair.com/





Here is the clip to Mr. Beck

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/search.php?searchid=443553