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 ...
When quoting or paraphrasing be sure to include the source link, url or information so that the moderators can check for copyright restrictions.
As for my do not reply list.
I do not fear honest debate which sticks to the subject at hand and does not resort to cheap shots when one has lost control of the argument.
Your reply is honest, albeit a little overwrought, but it is a valid challenge and question.
I am not thin skinned, but do not care for the ridicule that accompanies some of the debate here. I do not participate in it. A read through my posts will show that I am respectful and nearly always use my own words to defend what I believe.
I ask the same of others, that’s all and when someone crosses the line or says something so egregious, I choose not to continue engaging them.
It’s a personal thing for me, as I do no wish to get caught up in anger toward that person and responding to a poster is a little like a Lays potato chip, one cannot stop with just one and then off it goes to the inevitable invective, ad hominem or ridicule.
Not for me, but if it suits you, then more power to you.
If you are quoting from a printed source include the title, author, issue, page or whatever so that the moderators can check for copyright restrictions.
Throwing up straw dogs is a tactic that attempts to shield a lack of knowledge of scriptures truth. He uses that tactic often.
At the very beginning of my conversation with Uri’el-2012 I quoted Scripture. It was not I who brought in the catechism, though if one does read it, one will find that it relies extensively on Scripture.
So gee, no I don’t see what you mean about not using Scripture.
My hope is that it’s just a lack of knowing it and a resistance to hearing it. We can pray the God removes the blinders.
You secondary source is scripture. Your primary source for belief is the RCC as evidenced by the reliance on RCC catechism not scripture.
I can take it. ;o)
PRAISE GOD.
That’s sure my understanding of Scripture.
What happened to the REPLACEMENTARIANS?
Were they busy doing sterile, pretend-pseudo-tidy boxed, one-upsmanship pontifications when God passed out Biblical understanding and discernment?
Rest easy FR, I’ve got my eye out for them.
What GN has described, I see as a failure on the part of us Christians to adequately reach out to prisoners. Yes, we know what the Moslem imams are up to, and I really want to reach out blacks who say they joined Islam for egalitarianism and tell them about Islam’s role in continuing slavery.
That I will do. And thank you for your answer and your hard work around here! smvoice
I remember some guys in college saying, “If it wasn’t for women, we’d still be in the Garden of Eden eating strawberries.” ;o)
As you can see, bkaycee, you Reformed and iscool's non-Christian group have nothing in common.
I confess; it was I who brought in Roman Catholic Catechism
:)
Sad thing is that I did it to prove the catechism was wrong. The Scriptures prove it... Yet, somehow it was me that was confused —apparently.
This goes to prove your point: scripture takes a back-seat to tradition. Funny that the Scriptures which so many Roman Catholics here claim was provided/written by the RCC are so blithely ignored when it proves their teachings to be falsehoods.
Hoss
After reading your very informative post, I have to agree. Spitwads, thrown when the Epistles of Paul are given any sort of Scriptural importance. To say his name is to set off a wave of vitriol and accusations. Not any more. Not here, at least. Thanks again, boatbums
Who is stalking? I’m pointing out the fallacies in the poster’s statements.
As the RM pointed out, it is called ridiculing a person who is so open to ridicule it is apparent.
If a poster, such as yourself, asks or even argues in a manner that makes it apparent that you sincerely want to talk, I respond in kind. But if a poster responds with his alien believe and other stuff, I like to point out the utter fallacies in his point of view.
If you don't like this, then I suggest you talk to your friend to change his tune.
It’s sad really. I’ve been convinced it’s Churchianity rather then Christianity.
Thank you for your support.
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.