My 5th district Congressman is a Muslim, and I voted for him. His name is Keith Ellison and he is the only Muslim in Congress. How did he get there in spite of fear mongering about him being a terrorist? Because he is a liberal Democrat so it didn't stick. I saw footage of him speaking to a local mosque. He told all the Muslims there that gay marriage was just. He told them that since they didn't like prejudice - so they should not be prejudiced against others.
That's just a tiny bit about him.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 34
You should never identify a person with a category or label in front of their position or name. Like.... The Autistic Boy in my class.... Or the ditzy cheerleader..... Or The Diaper Kid.... Instead, you should refer to them as a person first. The boy in my class who happens to be Autistic. Or The cheerleader that is in fact as ditzy as she acts on the back of the bus. Or.... My student who cannot control his bladder and wears a diaper.
Similarly, you should probably make it your US Congressman who happens to be Muslim. He would probably rather be identified as the US Congressmen than the Muslim. Just my opinion though.
He certainly has made history being the first Muslim in Congress. And he is far more liberal in what he will say than most Democrats. The famous Paul Wellstone wouldn't support gay marriage. Sort-of-likewise, Paul was well known as a Jew and his being a Jew was made a BIG HUGE deal at election time because he was running against another Jew who said he was more "Religiously Jewish" than Wellstone was. Amazing religious mudslinging comes out at campaigns that stick, in one way or another, for the rest of the politician's career. The U.S. doesn't allow much of a separation of church and state when it comes to elected officials.
Pansy Peter (ha ha)
(just pretend it's up there)
Someday he may be President.
Allah be with you..
What he stands for is what matters.
Regarding what Lainie was saying - When I was in college to become a teacher, we were encouraged to phrase things in this new way. It takes some getting used to but it's really powerful. Of course, if a person wants to be defined by their label, then that is a different matter. Like saying "My Christian Mother" who would think it was great! :) We shouldn't be defined by what we do or represent but by who we are. It's sometimes a subtle difference, but very important.
God could not be the three things.
If he will be omnipotente and omnisciente, then it has knowledge of the evil all and power to finish with it, still thus does not make it. It is not good.
If omnipotente will be and good, then it has to be able to extingir the evil and wants to make it, therefore it is good. But it does not know how much badly it exists.
If omnisciente will be and good, then it knows all of the evil and wants to change it. But this eliminates the possibility of being omnipotente, therefore if it it was eradicated the evil.
1 god created the logical man
2 gods wants that the man uses logic
3 gods dos not wants that the man venerate god
4 religious people is enemy of god
News Alert: Fort Hood Shooting Suspect Faces 13 Murder Charges
Inbox
NYTimes.com News Alert to me
show details 1:24 PM (2 hours ago)
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Thu, November 12, 2009 -- 1:23 PM ET
Army Charges Accused Fort Hood Shooter With 13 Murder Counts
Military officials say the Army psychiatrist accused of
killing 13 and wounding 29 in last week's shooting rampage at
his military post in Texas will face 13 charges of
premeditated murder under the military's legal system. The
decision makes him eligible for the death penalty if
convicted.
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/12/us/politics/AP-US-Fort-Hood-Shooting-Charges.html?emc=na