The Idaho Statesman today has an article proclaiming “Sali Apologizes to Muslim Congressman”.
..WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Bill Sali has apologized to the nation’s first Muslim congressman, whose election Sali suggested in an interview was “not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers.”
A more complete version of what Sali said was
..”We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota,” he told the Web site. “Those are changes — and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The principles that this country was built on, that have made it great over these centuries were Christian principles derived from Scriptures. You know, the Lord can cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike.”
Later in the article, the reporter said this,
..But Sali makes no apologies for the general thrust of the content. He firmly believes that religion is a “pillar of our freedom,” Hoffman said.
“What he was trying to say is that he’s a Christian, and that he believes this nation was founded on Christian principles and that it’s important to embrace those principles,” Hoffman said. “The congressman is a very strong believer in freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers used Scripture as a reference in devising the type of government we have today.”
Apology or not, I think Sali is missing a great opportunity to explain what he and many others see as the treat Islam is to the United States, and to the West in general. There is no contradiction in the idea that the founding fathers believed in, and made place in our system of government, for freedom of religion, be it Christianity or Islam.
..Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded “the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians,” a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.
But many recognized the danger inherent in Islam, that it is not simply a “religion” but a complete worldview and political system as well. There is NO “separation of Church and State” in Islam, not in the 7th century, not in the 19th century, and not in the 21st century. That Sali recognizes that threat, but feels compelled to backpedal from his first statement is a shame. This quote might explain why
..Both the Idaho Democratic Party and Sali’s 2008 Democratic opponent, Larry Grant, have capitalized on the hubbub in the blogosphere.
Democratic Party Chairman Richard Stallings called on Sali to either apologize or resign, and Grant wrote Ellison a letter calling his opponent’s comments “thoughtless, uninformed and inappropriate.”
Of course they’re capitalizing on it, and in typical Democrat fashion they’re calling for him to resign… no freedom of speech or open debate in the public square for these guys! But really, just WHO is uninformed? And what is “inappropriate” about bringing questions to the table about what the founding fathers might have intended? Are they afraid to go back to root principles, and the history behind them? A great opportunity here for Sali to teach Grant a little something about the distinctives of Islam, wouldn’t you think? Again, “thoughtless, and inappropriate”? I would like to hear what they think of this slam by Ellison’s spokesman
..”We will take Bill Sali at his word,” Rick Jauert said Friday. “That would be in keeping with Keith’s turn-the-other-cheek mentality. He figures if someone has a bad day, chooses their words poorly, we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.”
There is no “turn-the-other-cheek mentality” in Islam, and this is the kind of pompous one-upmanship that is one of the reasons this Congress has an approval rating in the low teens. I would love to hear Ellison answer a question about how he can follow Islam and the American Constitution at the same time? I would like to hear him explain what he would envision for the future of America, as it relates to the role of Islam in shaping society? I would like to hear him answer what role Islamic sharia law should play in the this country is governed? Just asking.
This reminds me of another bit of pompous showmanship by Ellison, and that is the use of Thomas Jefferson’s copy of the Koran for his ceremonial oath of office.
..Ellison took a ceremonial oath of office using a Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson. In interviews at the time, he said he chose the Koran from the Library of Congress because “it showed that a visionary like Jefferson believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.”
What goes unsaid, by the newspaper and the Democrats they quote in the article, is that Jefferson, along with John Quincy Adams and Benjamin Franklin, were commissioned by Congress to report on Islam and the Barbary Pirates (who just happened to be Muslim by the way, in case you slept through that part of your American History class). For an excellent primer on the subject, check out this article at DhimmiWatch, which includes this quote
..did they know much about what prompted Muslim behavior? No. So they asked why the Barbary states (present-day Morocco, Algerian, Tunisia, and Libya) would continually attack American and all other Infidel shipping, seize the cargoes and the sailors, taking both back to Islamic lands and enslaving those Christian seamen who sometimes could be ransomed, sometimes not. So they asked the ambassador, Mr. Adja, why the Muslims of the Maghrib, the “Barbary pirates” as they were known in the West, did as they did.
He had no trouble answering them, as the report written by Jefferson and Adams to the Continental Congress shows:“…that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
and this one
..a piercing, no-nonsense quote from John Quincy Adams, writing in about 1829 after his retirement from public life:
“….he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God…the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.”
Another Adams quote
..“As the essential principle of his [Muhammad’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.”
I agree with what Sali said in the first place, the founders didn’t intend for our freedom of religion or the so called “separation of church and state” to be undermined by a belief system that is antihetical to everything this Republic stands for, and I believe it is something that needs to be said over and over again. But I’m greatly disappointed that Bill Sali appears to be missing a golden opportunity to stand tough, take the heat, and do a little teaching here. It is important that this nation, including Democrats and newsreporters, hears these things, instead of putting on the same old tired outrage as a way to intimidate those who don’t agree with them, and thereby stifle free speech and debate.
Note: Yes, I’m aware of Mr Sali’s guest opinion piece in the Idaho Press Tribune, which included this remark
The Judeo-Christian principles on which our republic was founded can be embraced, defended and practiced by people of any faith. Anyone doing so will find an ally in me. But when principles outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition begin to be promoted within Congress, we should all recognize that the government given to us by the Founding Fathers will be at risk. That should give every American serious pause.
I think his remarks were great, as far as they went, and yes, I know they are being ignored, by the local media. But really, the Idaho Press Tribune isn’t exactly a large presence in Idaho, much less on the National scene, and that is where my comments about missing a good opportunity come from.
Entries (RSS)