My Faith: Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), from Catholic to Muslim

CNN ^ | 9/1/11 | Chris Welch

[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.”

[Mad Dawg]

Look. You said something untrue about us. I showed itwas untrue. Instead of acknowledging your error you changed the subject to something else that was untrue. That’s bobbing and weaving.

Sharing opinions is jejune if the opinions are not subject to scrutiny and if their holder is not prepared to change them in the face of evidence to the contrary. “That’s just how I feel,” or “This is MY truth about Catholicism,” may work for movie-stars and other idiots. Not for grownups.

What exactly is the point of saying things like “Your priests say they can [do this or that]?” I dare say some inept or poorly educated priests do say a lot of foolish things. So what?

I can’t defend and don’t see the point of explaining incorrect statements made by Catholics about their faith. Why would you want me to?

But if someone says that Father Bluster or Sister Mary Sadistica or Mrs. Concetta MacGilllicuddy once said such and such therefore Catholicism is wrong, I can say something, maybe even should say something.

If the person then persists in saying it, without examination or changes the subject, then what are we doing?

And note: I answered your objections. You have not answered my responses and have largely ignored my questions.

So it’s not a conversation, it’s a monolog of falsehood. What interest in your opinion should I pay to such a monolog?

You say our priests claim to cause the alleged miracle of the Mass. I show that that is not what we teach. So you say our priests claim to be able to bring Christ down from heaven. I have already in this thread cited where Aquinas teaches the contrary. Is “No we don’t [with evidence],” “Yes you do [without evidence]!” your idea of adult conversation?

[Mad Dawg]

++++++++
when I am simply stating what my observations are for most with those I?ve encountered as catholics and their practices...outside of FR.
++++++++

That’s not true. You are not simply stating your observations. You may possibly have observed a priest saying
He could bring Christ down from heaven, though I doubt it. But you deliver that observation after a bunch of texts which seem to contradict what you allege our priests said.

That’s not a simple observation, that’s an argument. It’s an argument against our teaching based NOT on the authoritative sources of that teaching but on what you say you observe our priests to have said.

Then, rather than deal with what I say, you say that sensitivity about our “rituals” leads to angry responses. That is not an observation but an interpretation.

Then you say that my possibly knowing more about Catholicism doesn’t mean you are wrong. I agree. But it doesn’t mean you are right either. We should compare sources. What are your sources for your allegation that our priests say such-and-such and what are the sources or the reasoning leading to the conclusion that what they say is what the teaching of the Church is?

[Elsie]

We now return you to your scheduled programming...

“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said.

Thank Allah that Islam ISN'T!!!!!

[Elsie]

Me, too!

Me too!!!...

“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.

“This is the effort that we are seeing of Jim Crow.
Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second class citizens.
Some of them in Congress right now with this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me… hanging on a tree,”

--Andre Carson D-IN

[Elsie]

So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”

Islam is FREE of REQUIREMENTS!"

[Elsie]

Now boys; the ENEMY has turned us against one another.

The REAL heretics is bein' Muslims and MORMONs!

[Elsie]

If you’d like to know what we teach rather than attack what we don’t teach, you can start with Aquinas.

O'course; over the years, a FEW things we DO might have crept in...

---

John 6:28-29 (niv)

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

[Elsie]

Words have to be learned and they are learned according to traditions.

2 Corinthians 1:13

For we are not writing any other things to you than what you read or understand. Now I trust you will understand, even to the end

[Elsie]

Although baptism and ritualistic cleansing was practiced long before John the Baptist, the it was not commanded until Acts 10:48.

HMMmmm...

That Paul fellow must not have gotten the memo!

1 Corinthians 1:16

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

[Elsie]

In fact the author of Acts is not known, but many speculate that it was written by the same person that wrote all or parts of Luke.

---

Theophilus is the name of a person or an honorary title to whom the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are addressed (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1). It is unanimously agreed that both Luke and Acts were originally written in a refined Koine Greek, and that "θεόφιλος" ("Theophilos"), as it appears therein, means friend of God^[1] or (be)loved by God or loving God^[2] in the Greek language.

 

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_(Biblical) )

[stonehouse01]

Go read Colossians Chapter 1, Verse 24. Read it and meditate upon it.

Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to open the gates of heaven - his sacrifice does not guarantee entry because we have free will. It can be both and has to be both - we must cooperate with Him with our works - this is not a free ride.

Also look at Matthew 7:21.

[stonehouse01]

This is correct - only it is the first step.

Once we believe we must do the works

Romans 2: 2-8

Look it up and read it especially verse 6

[Iscool]

We use logic all the time. We even use it when learning from scriptures. If you’re going to deny that you have used logic in learning from scriptures, then I (and I am betting everyone else) would have to consider you some sort of fool.

I used to rely on logic in reading the scriptures...And like you, I was all over the place...

Then I got saved...I no longer use or need logic...

The scriptures are illogical...They don't make much sense to a person using man's logic...They are foolishness to the natural man...

That's why you guys have to throw out 90% of scripture and call it an allegory...you just don't get it...It doesn't compute to you guys...

[Iscool]

Did Christ send the Church?

Not your Church...

[stonehouse01]

Being “saved” does not cause us to stop using our brains.

Theology has occupied brilliant minds. Augustine, Aquinas, Newman - I will even throw in Luther.

Who exactly are “you guys” and who says anyone is throwing out 90% of scripture as allegory?

[Mad Dawg]

No. I deny that keeping it imperfectly necessarily implies breaking it or sinning. That’s where I find my tertium quid.

If I were to characterize one strain among the non-Catholics I would say they tend to put “either/or” where it does not clearly belong.

[Iscool]

And that Savior’s body on earth, I find in Paul, is the Church. So either God sent an incorporeal Jesus or He sent the Church in the same act as that of sending Jesus

You may have found a church in Paul but it wasn't the Catholic church...

Jesus went to heaven...God sent an incorporeal Holy Spirit to take his place...

God did not send a Chruch...We have become the church...

What part of you makes up your portion of the Body of Christ; your flesh, your soul or both???

[Mad Dawg]

Thanks backatcha.

A lady came to her priest and asked, “Am I correct in thinking that anything a saint has touched is a third class relic?

“That’s right,” he said.

“Well, Mother Cabrini once gave me a spanking.”

There seems to be something like third class relics in Acts where cloths touched to Peter have a healing effect.

But, yeah, we ARE prone to going overboard.

[stonehouse01]

Funny - you are right!! And if this thread could somehow be broken into the various apologetics that are going on -

The man in Wisconsin is a fool for becoming Muslim - that is how we got started and we all Agree!!

[Iscool]

Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself.In a word, NUTS...

God chose Moses to lead His people...It's in the scriptures...There's no oral tradition to it...