Lawmaker Apologizes

Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by moondg, Aug 18, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. moondg

    moondg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]Lawmaker Apologizes for Muslim Remarks.Aug 18 02:15 AM US/Eastern
    By TODD DVORAK
    .[​IMG]BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Rep. Bill Sali has apologized to a Muslim colleague for remarks suggesting the nation's founders never intended for Muslims to serve in Congress.
    In an Aug. 8 interview with the conservative Christian-based American Family News Network, Sali also questioned the wisdom of Senate leaders, who last month invited a Hindu clergyman to give the morning prayer in the chamber.
    "We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes—and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers," Sali said, according to an article on the network's Web site.
    The comments drew criticism from liberal bloggers and Idaho Democrats. Former Idaho Democratic congressman Richard Stallings called for Sali to either apologize or resign.
    Sali responded days later, sending Ellison an e-mail explaining he meant no offense.
    "He said that he wanted to make sure that Congressman Ellison understood that he meant no harm or disrespect," Sali spokesman Wayne Hoffman said.
    Hoffman declined to release a copy of the e-mail, saying it was a private communication.
    Ellison is traveling outside the country, but his spokesman said the congressman typically does not take such remarks personally.
    "We will take Bill Sali at his word," Rick Jauert said Friday. "That would be in keeping with Keith's turn-the-other-cheek mentality. He figures if someone has a bad day, chooses their words poorly, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt."
    A spokesman for a national Islamic civil rights group I can not beleive they have a civil rights group in the USA.said the organization is satisfied with Sali's response.
    Sali drew criticism last year for linking abortion to breast cancer rates during debates on the House floor.
    ___
    On the Net:
    American Family News Network: .
    .

    We need to be sure we don't hurt anyones feelings this makes me sick.
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am glad that Congressman Sali was man enough to apologize for such a stupid remark.

    It makes you sick that we shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings, eh? What does God say about that?

    Ephes. 4:29 (ESV)
    Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
     
    #2 KenH, Aug 18, 2007
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2007
  3. moondg

    moondg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is what is wrong now we can not tell anyone they are wrong because it will hurt there feelings. That is a bunch of hog wash. We have to stand up for what we believe.
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speaking up for what one believes is one thing, but what Congressman Sali said wasn't even true. It was a stupid, ignorant remark on his part. I hope he learned his lesson.
     
  5. moondg

    moondg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    the nation's founders never intended for Muslims to serve in Congress.
    Do you think they did?
    Do you think they intended for women to be there?
    You do remember when the nation was founded.
    I am not saying what he said was correct. I am not saying he should have said it. I am saying we worry to much about peoples feelings. Do I think illegal aliens should be in this country NO do I care if it offends them NO.
     
  6. moondg

    moondg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    [edit] Occupations

    The 1787 delegates practiced a wide range of high and middle-status occupations, and many pursued more than one career simultaneously. They did not differ dramatically from the Loyalists, except they were younger and less senior in their professions.[5] Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training, though not all of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges.[6]
    • At the time of the convention, 13 men were merchants: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gerry, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson.
    • Six were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, and Wilson.
    • Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman.
    • Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves as did Franklin who later freed his slaves and became an abolitionist.
    • Broom and Few were small farmers.
    • Nine of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Jenifer, Livingston, Madison, and Rutledge.
    • Three had retired from active economic endeavors: Franklin, McHenry, and Mifflin.
    • Franklin and Williamson were scientists, in addition to their other activities.
    • McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians, and Johnson was a college president.
    • Baldwin had been a Protestant minister, and Williamson, Madison, Ellsworth, and possibly others had studied theology but had never been ordained. who do you think they thought would be in congress.
     
    #6 moondg, Aug 18, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2007
  7. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101


    No, but they didn't intend for American Indians, black people or people without property to serve, either.

    However, they adopted a constitution that clearly states that "
    no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." That seems pretty straighforward.

    As noted Baptist preacher (and advocate for the First Amendment) John Leland said:

    "
    The federal constitution certainly had the advantage of any of the state constitutions, in being made by the wisest men in the whole nation, ... and that constitution forbids Congress ever to establish any kind of religion, or require any religious test to qualify any officer in any department of federal government. Let a man be Pagan, Turk, Jew or Christian, he is eligible to any post in that government."




    Not sure what this has to do with immigration, but my opinion of Sali's comments is that ithey are proof that inn almost all cases it is better to remain quiet and let others think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The answer to both questions is that if they were alive today(and the closest we have to a Founding Father today is Congressman Ron Paul) they would have no problem with a woman or a non-white Euroopean or a non-Christian serving in the U.S. Congress.
     
  9. moondg

    moondg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not know what you based your answer on but it was not history.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    It isn't 1787 anymore, moondg.
     
  11. moondg

    moondg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know this, you are missing my point. I am not saying what he said was not inappropriate. I am just saying it was probably correct.
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay. We'll just have to agree to disagree. :)
     
  13. moondg

    moondg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK Brother. Hey I don't know were else to ask this so. I work with a couple of guys that love bluegrass one plays the banjo. He goes to Ark. some were and plays at some festival. Do you play a instrument and do you know were I am talking about. I think it is in Heber.
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78

    I admire the congressman's ability to apologise for his remarks. Our founding fathers intended just what we have; religious liberty with no religious tests.
     
  15. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are several bluegrass festivals in the northern half of Arkansas. I live near the border with Louisiana. I am just beginning to learn how to play the acoustic guitar.
     
  16. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    What Sali said was most certainly correct.

    But not politically correct.

    A good illustration of the truth many times being unacceptable in today's entitlement society.
     
  17. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most certainly he was not correct. Using that kind of reasoning then you would also have an objection to anyone other than a white male of European descent serving in the Congress. And I really doubt that you want to go there with your argument.
     
  18. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    I don't have any doubt at all that "Those are changes—and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers" is a true statement.

    Can you prove him wrong?
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you have a problem with Muslims serving in the Congress, carpro? How about women? How about blacks? How about Hispanics? How about me? How about Hispanics? How about Hindus?

    Belly on up to the bar and answer.
     
  20. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    What I think has no bearing at all on the truthfulness of his comment. Your answers to the questions you asked have no bearing , either.

    My question does.

    Can you prove him wrong? You avoided answering it the first time. Wanna try again?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...