Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

My Faith: Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), from Catholic to Muslim
CNN ^ | 9/1/11 | Chris Welch

Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow

Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.

But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.

“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.

“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”

Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.

But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.

“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”

It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”

(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Islam; Theology
KEYWORDS: blackmuslims; islam; keithellison; muslim
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,881-2,9002,901-2,9202,921-2,940 ... 4,661-4,676 next last
To: metmom

Hi Met -—

Thanks for the catch — was reading “co-redemptrix” and transposed it in by mistake.

Good point though — if she’s THE Mediatrix, why DO Catholics need Jesus?

Hmmm. “The Mediatrix” — might make for an interesting move. NOT.

:D

Hoss


2,901 posted on 09/11/2011 6:56:45 PM PDT by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2891 | View Replies]

To: HossB86
"And sorry -- that still proves that SCRIPTURE and TRADITION do conflict."

See post #2895.

2,902 posted on 09/11/2011 6:57:28 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2898 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

ASSUME the worst and just run with it? I don’t have to assume. I read your catechism.


2,903 posted on 09/11/2011 6:57:28 PM PDT by smvoice (The Cross was NOT God's Plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2900 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

“I don’t understand everything. But I DO understand when I’m being deceived.”

Get real, you’re your own pope.


2,904 posted on 09/11/2011 6:58:06 PM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2899 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
"however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator."

Then why "invoke" her at ALL? Oddly, this quote continues in what appears to be a contradiction:

"as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."

Remember that verse? There is ONE mediator...." -- that EXCLUDES any sharing by definition. So.... which is it? Looks like it's still an issue of contradiction on the part of the Roman Catholic Church's flawed "tradition."

Hoss

2,905 posted on 09/11/2011 7:01:44 PM PDT by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2895 | View Replies]

To: Not gonna take it anymore

My own pope? lol! I am the temple of God. 1 Cor. 3:16. And so are you, if you are saved.


2,906 posted on 09/11/2011 7:02:06 PM PDT by smvoice (The Cross was NOT God's Plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2904 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

It is an interesting story. There’s so much to know too.


2,907 posted on 09/11/2011 7:02:25 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2885 | View Replies]

To: bronx2; Alex Murphy; metmom; RnMomof7; CynicalBear; smvoice; caww; markomalley; Dr. Eckleburg; ...
You have no proof other than your self serving testimony which is conjecture.Please provide evidence to the contrary or remain silent on this issue. The 30000+ will be used .

HELLO!!!!!!!! You cannot command me to do or not do anything, do you understand that? I can assert whatsoever I want. You can choose to use the false assertion that there are 30,000 or more Protestant denominations and I then can be just as justified in asserting there are more than 8000 Catholic denominations. Deal?

And for the edification of those who may be wondering if such a number of distinct denominations can be proved, I provide the following article so that, anytime someone insist that there are 30 thousand Protestant denominations in this world - all in the desperate attempt to prove only the Catholic Church is unified as one body - you may know that they are full of beans, or some other thing and should be embarassed to ever say such a thing ever again:

+++++Explains the 30,000 different sects, doesn’t it?++++ One more time

Upon This Slippery Rock (Calvary Press, 2002).

Throughout this book we have examined the Roman Catholic apologist’s primary argument against sola Scriptura and Protestantism; namely, that sola Scriptura produces doctrinal anarchy as is witnessed in the 25,000 Protestant denominations extant today. We have all along assumed the soundness of the premise that in fact there are 25,000 Protestant denominations; and we have shown that—even if this figure is correct—the Roman Catholic argument falls to the ground since it compares apples to oranges. We have just one more little detail to address before we can close; namely, the correctness of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denominations figure itself.

When this figure first surfaced among Roman Catholic apologists, it started at 20,000 Protestant denominations, grew to 23,000 Protestant denominations, then to 25,000 Protestant denominations. More recently, that figure has been inflated to 28,000, to over 32,000. These days, many Roman Catholic apologists feel content simply to calculate a daily rate of growth (based on their previous adherence to the original benchmark figure of 20,000) that they can then use as a basis for projecting just how many Protestant denominations there were, or will be, in any given year. But just where does this figure originate?

I have posed this question over and over again to many different Roman Catholic apologists, none of whom were able to verify the source with certainty. In most cases, one Roman Catholic apologist would claim he obtained the figure from another Roman Catholic apologist. When I would ask the latter Roman Catholic apologist about the figure, it was not uncommon for that apologist to point to the former apologist as his source for the figure, creating a circle with no actual beginning. I have long suspected that, whatever the source might be, the words “denomination” and “Protestant” were being defined in a way that most of us would reject.

I have only recently been able to locate the source of this figure. I say the source because in fact there is only one source that mentions this figure independently. All other secondary sources (to which Roman Catholics sometimes make appeal) ultimately cite the same original source. That source is David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). This work is both comprehensive and painstakingly detailed; and its contents are quite enlightening. However, the reader who turns to this work for validation of the Roman Catholic 25,000-Protestant-denomination argument will be sadly disappointed. What follows is a synopsis of what Barrett’s work in this area really says.

First, Barrett, writing in 1982, does indeed cite a figure of 20,780 denominations in 1980, and projects that there would be as many as 22,190 denominations by 1985. This represents an increase of approximately 270 new denominations each year (Barrett, 17). What the Roman Catholic who cites this figure does not tell us (most likely because he does not know) is that most of these denominations are non-Protestant.

Barrett identifies seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” under which these 22,190 distinct denominations fall (Barrett, 14-15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations; (3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults (Barrett, 14), and which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations.

According to Barrett’s calculations, there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism—not 25,000 as Roman Catholic apologists so cavalierly and carelessly claim. Barrett is also quick to point out that one cannot simply assume that this number will continue to grow each year; hence, the typical Roman Catholic projection of an annual increase in this number is simply not a given. Yet even this figure is misleading; for it is clear that Barrett defines “distinct denominations” as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group (such as the difference between a Baptist church that emphasizes hymns, and another Baptist church that emphasizes praise music).

No doubt the same Roman Catholic apologists who so gleefully cite the erroneous 25,000-denominations figure, and who might with just as much glee cite the revised 8,196-denominations figure, would reel at the notion that there might actually be 223 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism! Yet that is precisely the number that Barrett cites for Roman Catholicism. Moreover, Barrett indicates in the case of Roman Catholicism that even this number can be broken down further to produce 2,942 separate “denominations”—and that was only in 1970! In that same year there were only 3,294 Protestant denominations; a difference of only 352 denominations. If we were to use the Roman Catholic apologist’s method to “project” a figure for the current day, we could no doubt postulate a number upwards of 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations today! Hence, if Roman Catholic apologists want to argue that Protestantism is splintered into 8,196 “bickering” denominations, then they must just as readily admit that their own ecclesial system is splintered into at least 2,942 bickering denominations (possibly as many as 8,000). If, on the other hand, they would rather claim that among those 2,942+ (perhaps 8,000?) Roman Catholic denominations there is “unity,” then they can have no objection to the notion that among the 8,196 Protestant denominations there is also unity.

In reality, Barrett indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist denominations comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant figure. Yet the lion’s share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them (in Barrett’s calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there are ten Independent Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them are identical in belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its autonomy in jurisdiction. This same principle applies to all independent or semi-independent denominations. And even beyond this, all Independent Baptist denominations are counted separately from all other Baptist denominations, even though there might not be a dime’s worth of difference among them. The same principle is operative in Barrett’s count of Roman Catholic denominations. He cites 194 Latin-rite denominations in 1970, by which Barrett means separate jurisdictions (or diocese). Again, a distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices. However Barrett has defined “denomination,” it is clear that he does not think of these as major distinctions; for that is something he reserves for another category. In addition to the seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above), Barrett breaks down each of these traditions into smaller units that might have significant differences (what he calls “major ecclesiastical traditions,” and what we might normally call a true denomination) (Barrett, 14). Referring again to our seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above, but this time in reverse order): For (1) Catholic (Non-Roman), there are four traditions, including Catholic Apostolic, Reformed Catholic, Old Catholic, and Conservative Catholic; for (2) Marginal Protestants, there are six traditions; for (3) Anglican, there are six traditions; for (4) Non-White Indigenous, which encompasses third-world peoples (among whom can be found traces of Christianity mixed with the major tenets of their indigenous pagan religions), there are twenty traditions, including a branch of Reformed Catholic and a branch of Conservative Catholic; for (5) Orthodox, there are nineteen traditions; for (6) Protestant, there are twenty-one traditions; and for (7) Roman Catholic, there are sixteen traditions, including Latin-rite local, Latin-rite catholic, Latin/Eastern-rite local, Latin/Eastern-rite catholic, Syro-Malabarese, Ukrainian, Romanian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Hungarian, plural Oriental rites, Syro-Malankarese, Slovak, and Coptic. It is important to note here that Barrett places these sixteen Roman Catholic traditions (i.e., true denominations) on the very same level as the twenty-one Protestant traditions (i.e., true denominations). In other words, the true count of real denominations within Protestantism is twenty-one, whereas the true count of real denominations within Roman Catholic is sixteen. Combined with the other major ecclesiastical blocs, that puts the total number of actual denominations in the world at ninety-two—obviously nowhere near the 23,000 or 25,000 figure that Roman Catholic apologists constantly assert—and that figure of ninety-two denominations includes the sixteen denominations of Roman Catholicism (Barrett, 15)! Barrett goes on to note that this figure includes all denominations with a membership of over 100,000. There are an additional sixty-four denominations worldwide, distributed among the seven major ecclesiastical blocs.

As we have shown, the larger figures mentioned earlier (8,196 Protestant denominations and perhaps as many as 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations) are based on jurisdiction rather than differing beliefs and practice. Obviously, neither of those figures represents a true denominational distinction. Hence, Barrett’s broader category (which we have labeled true denominations) of twenty-one Protestant denominations and sixteen Roman Catholic denominations represents a much more realistic calculation.

Moreover, Barrett later compares Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism, which is a considerably smaller subset of Protestantism (so far as the number of denominations is concerned), and which is really the true category for those who hold to sola Scriptura (most Protestant denominations today, being liberal denominations and thereby dismissing the authority of the Bible, do not hold to sola Scriptura, except perhaps as a formality). Any comparison that the Roman Catholic apologist would like to make between sola Scriptura as the guiding principle of authority, and Rome as the guiding principle of authority (which we have demonstrated earlier is a false comparison in any case), needs to compare true sola Scriptura churches (i.e., Evangelicals) to Rome, rather than all Protestant churches to Rome. An Evangelical, as defined by Barrett, is someone who is characterized by (1) a personal conversion experience, (2) a reliance upon the Bible as the sole basis for faith and living, (3) an emphasis on evangelism, and (4) a conservative theology (Barrett, 71). Interestingly, when discussing Evangelicals Barrett provides no breakdown, but rather treats them as one homogeneous group. However, when he addresses Roman Catholics on the very same page, he breaks them down into four major groups: (1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholics (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults). And of course, we all know that this list can be supplemented by distinctions between moderate Roman Catholics (represented by almost all Roman Catholic scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant).

In any case, once we inquire into the source of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denomination figure one point becomes crystal clear. Whenever and at whatever point Barrett compares true denominations and differences among either Protestants or Evangelicals to those of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism emerges almost as splintered as Protestantism, and even more splintered than Evangelicalism. That levels the playing field significantly. Whatever charge of “doctrinal chaos” Roman Catholic apologists wish to level against Protestantism may be leveled with equal force—and perhaps even greater force—against the doctrinal chaos of Roman Catholicism. Obviously, the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the fact that he has only sixteen denominations while Protestantism has twenty-one; and he can take even less comfort in the fact that while Evangelicalism has no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism has at least four major divisions.

If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism. In any case, he cannot compare the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or even twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman Catholicism (as a single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a single ecclesial tradition).

In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly—and, as a result, irresponsibly—glanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon reading this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument to bed. The more likely scenario, however, is that the death of this argument will come about only when Evangelicals consistently point out this error—and correct it—each time it is raised by a Roman Catholic apologist. Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum. (Eric Svendsen)

2,908 posted on 09/11/2011 7:02:38 PM PDT by boatbums ( God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2892 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

See post 2905.

Hoss


2,909 posted on 09/11/2011 7:04:56 PM PDT by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2902 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
"I read your catechism."

Assuming you have, and I don't see any evidence of that, you have obviously never been taught the Catechism by a competent catechist. Like any complex subject it is not something you casually read or word search in response to an online question.

By your logic there would be no need or use for schools, universities and teachers, just book stores.

2,910 posted on 09/11/2011 7:05:15 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2903 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

Of course i’m saved. I’m baptized.

Are you saved by baptism?


2,911 posted on 09/11/2011 7:05:27 PM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2906 | View Replies]

To: Not gonna take it anymore

Baptism is what saved you?


2,912 posted on 09/11/2011 7:07:29 PM PDT by smvoice (The Cross was NOT God's Plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2911 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

No it is not something you can casually read or word search in response to an online question. Only a competent catechist can teach you where the astericks go.


2,913 posted on 09/11/2011 7:09:27 PM PDT by smvoice (The Cross was NOT God's Plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2910 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

God draws us to Him. We are saved by grace and baptism washes away our sin. If you have not been baptized then you are not saved in the way that Jesus gave his commission. Go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

You must be baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

It ain’t just an altar call. It isn’t just the sinners’ prayer.


2,914 posted on 09/11/2011 7:12:01 PM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2912 | View Replies]

To: Not gonna take it anymore
"And such were some of you: but ye ARE washed, but ye ARE sanctified, but ye ARE justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and BY THE SPIRIT of our God." 1 Cor. 6:11.

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...". 1 Cor. 12:13.

It is the Holy Spirit, not water, that baptizes us in the dispensation of grace. It is a spiritual baptism into the Body of Christ. The ONE BAPTISM of Eph. 4:4-6.

2,915 posted on 09/11/2011 7:19:39 PM PDT by smvoice (The Cross was NOT God's Plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2914 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
"No it is not something you can casually read or word search in response to an online question."

We can agree on that. The language we use (asterisks) to define and explain the doctrines and dogma's of the Church are very important and precise. There are more than a few competent catechists who frequent these thread, including me, that would be more than happy to explain all or any part of the Catechism to you on the open forum or privately in Freepmail and then discuss points of disagreement or contention.

The practice blurting out some confabulated version of the catechism and then criticizing it and Catholics for it isn't advancing anyone's case.

2,916 posted on 09/11/2011 7:22:50 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2913 | View Replies]

To: bronx2; boatbums

Legal threats are not welcome anywhere on Free Republic.


2,917 posted on 09/11/2011 7:32:21 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2884 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; bronx2; Alex Murphy; metmom; RnMomof7; smvoice; caww; markomalley; Dr. Eckleburg

The atheists are rather unified. The Muslims only have 2 different sects. The Mormons only have 2 that I know of. The Buddhists only have one. From the Catholic logic that the ones that are most unified wins would make all of them better then Catholic wouldn’t it?


2,918 posted on 09/11/2011 7:37:55 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2908 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Hmmmmm...good point, but next comes the power in numbers claim. The One Billion plus “Little Flock”....


2,919 posted on 09/11/2011 7:41:47 PM PDT by smvoice (The Cross was NOT God's Plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2918 | View Replies]

To: Not gonna take it anymore; smvoice
>> baptism washes away our sin<<

I suppose you would have to say that scripture is wrong then?

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood

2,920 posted on 09/11/2011 7:50:25 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2914 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,881-2,9002,901-2,9202,921-2,940 ... 4,661-4,676 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson