Friday, September 30, 2016   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » Islamophobia-Watch.com

Keith Ellison: GOP ‘basically a bigoted party’

Keith Ellison: GOP ‘basically a bigoted party’

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) blasted Republicans for including a plank in their convention platform targeting Shariah law in an interview with Mother JonesWednesday, blasting the language as “an expression of bigotry.”

“There has never been any legislation offered to establish Shariah law – not at the federal level, not at the state level. There’s not been a municipal ordinance opposing this, there’s not been anything,” said Ellison, the nation’s first Muslim member of Congress.

The Republican platform included language demanding “no use of foreign law by U.S. courts in interpreting our Constitution and laws.”

“Nor should foreign sources of law be used in State courts; adjudication of criminal or civil matters,” the platform continues in a section championed by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has been outspoken in his concern that the moral code of Islam could be playing a greater role in the American justice system.

Ellison blasted Republicans as “the party of hate” for having “demonstrated hatred towards Muslims” in adopting the language.

“I’m sad that they have decided to go into this dark, ugly place where they see the whole world as their enemy,” Ellison said. “And this is the thing: I don’t mind debating taxes and spending; we probably should. But they’re the party that is basically a bigoted party and they have now officially declared themselves against a whole segment of the American population, because if we said we were going to put a plank opposing Jewish law, or Catholic canon, it would be an outrage. This is also an outrage. But you know, it’ll pass.”

The Hill, 6 September 2012

Share/Bookmark




15 Comments »

  1. Why can’t he just say “Republicans are misleading the nation. Democrats and I will never allow “Sharia” to ever set foot in the US” and be done with it ?

  2. Funny how the one calling Republicans bigots is an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood.

  3. this would be the funniest thing i’ve ever read, if this guy wasn’t an elected offical. instead it’s just sad.

    “Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) blasted Republicans for including a plank in their convention platform targeting Shariah law in an interview with Mother Jones Wednesday, blasting the language as “an expression of bigotry.”” how is a law that says no religious law should be allowed in american courts is targeting sharia?

    ““There has never been any legislation offered to establish Shariah law – not at the federal level, not at the state level. There’s not been a municipal ordinance opposing this, there’s not been anything,” said Ellison, the nation’s first Muslim member of Congress.” so that would make this a non-issue.

    “The Republican platform included language demanding “no use of foreign law by U.S. courts in interpreting our Constitution and laws.”” sounds like that shold have been the law of the land the whole time. sounds brilliant to me.

    ““Nor should foreign sources of law be used in State courts; adjudication of criminal or civil matters,” the platform continues in a section championed by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has been outspoken in his concern that the moral code of Islam could be playing a greater role in the American justice system.” again brilliant

    “Ellison blasted Republicans as “the party of hate” for having “demonstrated hatred towards Muslims” in adopting the language.” how does that demostrate anything towards muslims. how can you be against all americans following the same law?

    ““I’m sad that they have decided to go into this dark, ugly place where they see the whole world as their enemy,” Ellison said. “And this is the thing: I don’t mind debating taxes and spending; we probably should. But they’re the party that is basically a bigoted party and they have now officially declared themselves against a whole segment of the American population, because if we said we were going to put a plank opposing Jewish law, or Catholic canon, it would be an outrage. This is also an outrage. But you know, it’ll pass.”” can this guy read? jewish law and canon law will be disallowed in courts as well, as they should.

    this guy is a lawmaker?

  4. You guys and the mb. It’s like they are Cobra from the 8o’s Gi Joe cartoon

  5. tried to link the entire platform. but the comment didn’t go through for some reason. it’s at whitehouse12dotcom.

    “Subjecting American citizens to foreign laws is inimical to the spirit of the Constitution. It is one reason we oppose U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court. There must be no use of foreign law by U.S. courts in interpreting our Constitution and laws. Nor should foreign sources of law be used in State courts’ adjudication of criminal or civil matters.

    The Lacey Act of 1900, designed to protect endangered wildlife in interstate commerce, is now applied worldwide, making it a crime to use, in our domestic industries, any product illegally obtained in the country of origin, whether or not the user had anything to do with its harvesting. This unreasonable extension of the Act not only hurts American businesses and American jobs, but also subordinates our own rule of law to the legal codes of 195 other governments. It must be changed.

    Just as George Washington wisely warned America to avoid foreign entanglements and enter into only temporary alliances, we oppose the adoption or ratification of international treaties that weaken or encroach upon American sovereignty.

    as i was saying. george wouldn’t have made much of a muslim. temporary alliances only. he would have lost his head for that. unfortunately religion is not even mentioned in this plank. how is repealing the lacy act bigoted towards muslims? someone can’t get enough of playing the victim card.

    the plank above it is terrible though. trying to limit freedom of speech. that’s what he should be complaining about.

  6. s3,

    do you think sharia should be allowed in american courts?

  7. I wonder what happens when famous people start using their intellects and discover that they have publicly embraced a dark ugly thing which will bite their head off if they don’t profess to love it.

  8. The mb is not a cobra, it’s more like an anaconda python sort of thing, just squeezing all the free air out of the atmosphere.

    Seriously what do these fame types do. Some of them – Booth, Stevens – were volatile to begin with, what happens when they don’t want to wear the outfit or do the ramadanadingdong anymore?

  9. This is not a islamic country so why would sharia be allowed in american courts? we are able to practice the sharia every single day in america to the best of my knowdlge with the exception of the Hudud(punishments that are fixed for certain crimes)

  10. s3,

    exactly. thank you. finaly a muslim with some reason. what did your prophet jesus say? and a little child shall lead them.

  11. Maybe Rimsha Masih can lead somebody out of something.

  12. I agree with any language that prohibits laws from other countries or ideologies being used within our court system. We have lawmakers and traditions of law based upon English common law that was established when this country was founded. Laws from other countries and traditions followed by various religions have no role within our court system. I realize that one can bring up Marriage and similar issues, but these have been defined concepts even since the founding of our country. Though, even here I support Civil Unions as religion should not have a strangle hold on unions. The language on the platform does not single out Islam or sharia thus it is not bigoted, if one can indeed be bigoted in regards to a religion. However, once a Muslim makes his or her life in the United States, they are free to follow any custom they wish but when it goes to court, matters of inheritance, child custody, and other issues need to be decided by U.S. Law not Islamic doctrine or tradition. Nor, should it follow Jewish or Catholic tradition. I support this plank within the Republican Party.

  13. s3,

    if you had your druthers. would you implement the hudud?

  14. mike

    No I wouldn’t

  15. s3,

    cool. can i ask you where you were raised?

    so how is it you reconcile not implementing “god’s law”? how can you unfix the fixed law?

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>