| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
USInfo.State.Gov quotes Representative Keith Ellison:
[Ellison's] values derive from his Christian upbringing and Islam, which he has practiced for nearly 25 years. "The values that underlie Islam are not unique to Islam. They are shared by all faith traditions. Belief in charity, in giving to others in need and facing adversity, the belief in equality and justice -- there is no religion, including Islam, that has a monopoly on these ideas," he said.
That sounds good, doesn't it? He's saying Islam is all about equality and justice. But wait a minute -- what's this he says next?
Ellison said true Islamic values harmonize with the democratic process. "These are universal ideas. In fact, they're not just compatible with democracy; they drive us toward a society in which there is consultation, in which there is input and approval from the populace."
What's that? Something in Islamic values is going to "drive us toward a society in which there is consultation..." I guess that's okay. But why do we need to be "driven"? And -- consultation with whom? Let's see what he's next quoted as saying:
He asks, "How can you have a just society where one person or only a limited set of people make the laws for their benefit and yet other people who had no role in making the law have to abide by it? That's fundamentally unjust."
What other people is he talking about here, who, according to him, have had no role in making the laws of the nation, and yet are forced to abide by those laws? He doesn't say -- he's carefully oblique -- but given the subject of discussion, i.e "Islamic values," there is little room to doubt that he's referring to Muslims.
Keith Ellison appears to be saying that Muslims aren't going to accept our laws, but are going to demand that we change our laws to accommodate them. And if it doesn't happen, then Muslims are going to try to "drive us" there. There is cause for concern in this language at a time when Muslims worldwide are blowing up public places in the name of their religion, with the explicitly stated intention to force Islamic restrictions on freedom, onto Western nations.
Is Ellison on the side of those who want people of all cultures to assimilate successfully into U.S. life? Or is he on the side of those who want to impose Islamic loss of freedoms onto Western nations?
