She joins Daniel Pipes in smearing Rep. Ellison for no reason other than his religion. And, she joins Islamophobes who objected to Rep. Ellison’s being sworn in on a Qur’an after he was elected to office, for example: Rep. Virgil H. Goode, Jr. who said: “The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.”; and, Dennis Prager who said: “Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, [...] America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress.”
As Rabbi Dr. Barry Leff pointed out at that time: “There are Presidents who did not take an oath on the Bible, and there are Jews who have taken the oath on the Torah, as reported by Minnesota Monitor: In our country’s history, four presidents have been inaugurated without swearing an oath on the Bible. Franklin Pierce was affirmed, and swore no oath, Rutherford Hayes initially had a private ceremony with no Bible before his public ceremony, Theodore Roosevelt had no Bible at his ceremony, and Lyndon Johnson used a missal during his first term. Despite Prager’s insistence that “for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament,” it is clear that he is wrong. Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, took the oath of office on a Torah in 2001. Madeleine Kunin, a Jewish Immigrant and Governor of Vermont rested her left hand on a stack of old prayer books that had belonged to her mother, grandparents, and great grandfather” as “a physical expression of the weight of Jewish history. ... In fact, not only would I “allow” Mr. Ellison to take his oath on the Koran, I would insist on it. If he were to take his oath on a Christian Bible, I might be afraid he wasn’t sincere, it wasn’t really an oath. But if he were to swear by the Koran--well then I would know that it was a real oath to him. ”
As I said in an article responding to Pipes’ claims (but which applies equally to Torgerson, Goode, Prager, and all the other Islamophobes) “This is Islamophobia 3.0 and it is reprehensible. Ali Eteraz has the only answer we need to give to this sort of hateful, and ridiculous propaganda - Muslims should raise the other finger. It is the only reasonable response.” The only reasonable response, but in our current unreasonable time, there is a need to respond to at least part of her “argument” against Islam only because there are so many who are not religiously literate.
Here are some quotes from Torgerson’s site:
“… The Quran actually teaches Muslims to kill people not of their faith, which includes Christians and Jews, which are labeled infidels. ("Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.: (Sura 9:5)). This is advocating criminal behavior. Thus, at a minimum, this portion of the religion of Islam cannot be protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is not “religion” recognizable under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. ... People say that we can’t include the moderate, peace loving Muslims. Well, I agree. But, who are they? They need to stand up and identify themselves loudly and clearly say that they oppose Jihad and terrorism, etc. Who are these people? I cannot tell. It is not for me to go and try and find them. Rather, it is their duty to stand up and identify themselves, if there are any. ... And who does all of this bring us to? Keith Ellison. Who is Keith Ellison? He is my opposing candidate for the Fifth Congressional District seat. Keith Ellison is a Muslim, a person who was raised Christian and converted to Islam. ... Now, with all due respect, America, and its people, should be lauded for its goal of promoting to public office and other high ranks, people of color, African Americans, women, minorities, etc. However, quite frankly, in our zeal, we simply went too far with Keith Ellison. Keith Ellison simply is not a proper person to have in our federal government. I think it is interesting that Keith Ellison, in the past year or so, introduced a bill entitled “Global Peace.” “Global.” I think that word is telling. Globalization of Islam. It is also my understanding that when people of the Muslim faith use the word peace, that “peace” to them means the elimination of Christians and Jews. Yassar Arafat, a known terrorist who began the PLO (the Palestinian Labor Organization), also often called for “peace.” Also, it should be pointed out that during a recent vote regarding funding to support the needs of our troops, Keith Ellison voted against the bill. He later has voted to fund many other things, but, again, he voted against funding for the needs of our troops at war. So, we have Keith Ellison with ties both to Islam and to CAIR. We have him also voting against funding the needs of our military. Keith Ellison has no business in our federal government.”
Much of what Torgerson writes is laughable. She thinks the PLO is the Palestinian Labor Organization, and CAIR is the Council on Arab Islamic Relations, that “Umrah” reflects the goal of Islam to Islamize the entire world. Her statement goes on and on showing her ignorance about anything related to Islam, and yet she has very definite opinions about Islam and Muslims.
By Sheila Musaji
The American Muslim, 11 December 2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment