US House canidate from MN set be become first Muslim congressman

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Straybow
Nope, nothing to back the accusation of hatefulness.
Yep, just the typical demonization of the eeeeevil conservatives.

Move along; nothing to see here.

Just like it was unfair for liberals to demonize pro-segregation white supremacists during the 1950s and 60s, right?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo


That doesn't explain why he had the support of gay and Jewish groups in the community for the very competitive primary.

It's worth noting that he campaigned not on his race or religion, but as the next coming of a Jewish politician (though he probably won't be able to live up to Wellstone's accomplishments). Certainly not the profile of this "hate whitey" charicature that you have of him.

I'm sure he had the support of a few key individuals and establishments such as the DFL and American Jewish World.

To whit AJW received such niceties as this OPED in its paper

The op-ed page of the new issue of the AJW runs a short column by Amy Rotenberg, Dan Rosen and Marc Grossfield. It reads:

Although the American Jewish World has had a longstanding policy of not endorsing candidates for political office, the newspaper last week endorsed Rep. Keith Ellison in the DFL primary for the Fifth Congressional District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

We were troubled to learn that AJW's editor, Mordecai Specktor, made his endorsement secretly, and without any regard for the normal procedures of newspaper endorsements.

Specktor did not interview or even contact any other candidates in the race, other than Ellison. The AJW does not have an editorial board. Specktor's research on the candidates consisted of attending the candidates' debate at Temple Israel and studying the candidates' positions posted on their Web sites and in press releases.

The appropriate role for the sole newspaper of our Jewish community is to inform readers of facts and events important to our community, not to become the partisan agent of a single political candidate.

Throughout this campaign, the AJW has failed to report important, easily available news about Keith Ellison's background. The AJW has given short shrift to abundant, compelling public information about Ellison's nearly nine-year association with the Nation of Islam. Specktor knew of members of our community with personal knowledge of the scope and length of Ellison's associations with anti-Semites and hatemongers. He never interviewed them or reported what they know.

New information has come to light. On Aug. 25, a known supporter of Hamas, Nihad Awad, was featured at a fundraiser in Brooklyn Park, and personally contributed $2,000 to the Ellison campaign. Ellison's campaign claims the event generated $50,000 in contributions.

What are we to make of AJW's promotion of Keith Ellison now?

If one looks at the election statistiics yes the field was extremely competitive with a field of 5 meaningful candidates. That of course only underscores the effect of having a countable voting block to support your candidacy. The black contginent represents 10% of the voters in that district. With a whopping 21% turnout a DFL recommendation, a whitewash by Mordecia SpeKtor of the AJW, a commited black voting block its no wonder he got a rousing 41% mandate (smirk) clearly showing he was widely supported by all minority groups

(for the record the other top 2 candidates had 52% of the vote but I suppose the people that voted for those 2 other candidates must have been the real antisemites and racists cause no way Ellison would have ever appealed to that type of crowd )

That's absurd. The vast majority of politicians don't support gay marriage, period. The only two Republicans with any national stature that I can think of, who do are Chafee (who was almost primaried out of seat, and only saved through millions spent by the national party because he's the only kind of Republican who can win in RI) and Bloomberg (who ran as a Republican only because the Democratic field was too crowded).

But it's worth noting that Ellis opposes the Bigot Amendment. From his web site:

Would a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage help us to welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, heal the sick, or visit those in prison?

So if Ellis is characteristic of the NoI, the GOP is significantly more hateful than the NoI.

So it comes to this. An attempt to deflect and not take a stand and delay because it puts him at odds with a constituency marks him as a champion of the same aggrieved group. Doubleplus good there. I notice his tack is simply anti-repug but no, repeat NO statement as to how gay unions should indeed be recognized and to what extent. How freakin courageous.

By that same line of thinking I suppose those repugs who said that there were much greater things for the Massachusetts judiciary to deal with then the issue of gay marriage were just doing their best at being models of inclusion and tolerance.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom

The ancient pagan Roman was for a long time a polytheist- so incorporated whatever new gods came along if they happened to fill a need.


As I pointed out in another thread, the pragmatic pagan Romans even had a catalogue of gods, the 'Indigitamenta', which set out which gods were suitable for praying to for which purpose, and which were the suitable prayers or sacrifices.

Rather more rigorous in its practical approach to the supernatural and faith than browsing the latest pamphlets on dragons, crystals and the deep thought of Deepak Chopra in the local New Age shop in the high street.'

My impression was that individual Romans DID pick up things based on individual need and taste, whatever catalogues may have been published. I get my impression from Lane "Pagans and Christians" but perhaps I misremember.




"And as I also stated clearly in my post, 'the intellectual rigour of the major monotheistic faiths, Hinduism and the philosophy of Buddhism' - I don't see a zealous convert to Christianity deciding that they'll have a little bit of Manichaeism, some cult of Serapis, a touch of late Zoroastrianism and a smidgeon of Neoplatonism to go with their mini-pyramid and rock crystals and sign of the fish."


Traditional Christianity discourages overt syncretism. Nonetheless it occured, thoguh probably not with the "zealous converts" who would have been more orthodox in thought. My impression is that the spread of Christiainity (after Rome) was more due to masses following the conversion of a king, than to zealous converts, which would account for pagan survivals.

Certainly in non-Abrahamic environments, syncretism was more widespread, and more overt. Probably not quite the high street image you raise, simply because the commercial culture of western capitalism is somewhat distinctive.


"One famous convert from Manichaeism, St Augustine of Hippo, completely rejected his earlier faith, campaigning against it vigorously."

But few Christian converts were like Augustine, for better or worse.


"Show me the New Age equivalent of the Sistine Chapel, the friezes in the Alhambra, the Book of Durrow, the Oratorios of Bach or even for that matter, the writings of Aquinas, Ibn Sina or Moses Maimonides."

Hmm, I dont really follow New Age stuff that closely. Id suggest that some of the Beatles approach to eastern spirituality had some of the syncretism and consumerishness you describe, but i havent really read enough to say. Im thinking at least some late 20th c artists and classical musicians, thought along those lines, but Im drawing a blank as far as names. In literature, Im thinking Hesse, maybe some of the beat poets. Really, you must forgive me, this is part of the culture ive been neglecting lately.


"Somewhat more intellectual rigour in one page of Aquinas than I've seen in all the chanting, crystal hugging pyramid dwelling New Age Aquarian gobbledegook."

I really suspect 95% of day to day medieval piety was pretty unintellectual. I really dont know who the best advocates of this sort of thing are. Perhaps its too early. Perhaps it will fall apart before it has any great intellectual (i suspect thats what you suspect). Perhaps it will have some marginal influence on a more rigourous tradition (im thinking of places where the margins of the Abrahamic religions are being so influenced - Unitarianism, the Jewish Renewal movement, etc. BTW, have you read the Jew in the Lotus - about a group of Jewish thinkers of various backgrounds going to meet the Dalai Lama - im halfway through, or so -very interesting, and pretty intellectually challenging)


"Kitsch tends to come later on as art forms are cheapened and debased- the New Age rot we have to endure would appear to have begun in kitsch and simply deteriorated."

Well Id say it represents the blending of some already late forms - western kitcsh, plus Indic kitsch, I guess.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Show me the New Age equivalent of the Sistine Chapel, the friezes in the Alhambra, the Book of Durrow, the Oratorios of Bach or even for that matter, the writings of Aquinas, Ibn Sina or Moses Maimonides.

what would you think of someone

"who studied Plotinus Poe St. John of the Cross telepathy and bop kabbalah because the cosmos instinctively vibrated at their feet in Kansas"

Could they be an important poet?

[lord of the mark]

Of course some of what Im referring to is prior to "new age" and you may not consider. "New Age" seems so radically syncrestic its hard to define. In general im not sure what a good definition is - if we include the kitchness and consumerism and shallowness as part of the definition, we pretty much determined the game before it starts.

I would say the following things

1. Syncretism has always been part of religious development, whether acknowledged or not

2. We live in an age when "shopping" among cultural alternatives, from around the globe, whether in music, the arts, etc is far easier and far more widespread than at most times in the past. This seems a charecteristic of the age we live in and is widespread also among folks who are far from "new agers"


3. For people who ARE religious, and are NOT fundamentalist, exploring other faith traditions, and even borrowing practices, seems to be a natural reaction to todays situation. A fortiori for those with an interest in areas (such as mysticism) where the commonalities across rel traditions are strong. It also seems that exploring the relationships between aspects of western and eastern spirituality is natural

4. It doesnt seem unreasonable that some people not rooted in a western religion, might explore the eastern religions without actually converting to one of them. and that for people, following the 1960s, have rebelled both against western monotheism, and western rationalism, might look for a mix of eastern traditions, magic, with forms of ecological thought, is also not surprising.

5. Its perhaps not surprising that in a culture with an abundance of consumerism and shallowness, some who are doing the above (see 4) might get somewhat lost in shallowness.


Now what were we talking about again? These folks are crusty? What?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by molly bloom

One famous convert from Manichaeism, St Augustine of Hippo, completely rejected his earlier faith, campaigning against it vigorously.

Indeed, he did. But neoplatonism and other Greek philosophical influences do appear in church doctrine almost from the start.

Its influence was in a way of thinking, an approach to the examination, extrapolation and understanding of the holy texts and the personal experience of god.

It did not mean though resurrecting varied items of Greek paganist worship or folk religion to go alongside what was felt to be the revealed truth.

There was also grave suspicion of the mystical qualities of Neoplatonism and its links with pagan thought, with dogmatic Roman Catholic scholars condemning it.

The earliest practices of veneration of saints appears to draw very heavily on Greek mysticism, the same "protognostic" influence condemned in Paul's epistles. By the 3rd cen Christian doctrine was being formulated in a way that can only be described as neoplatonic. The homoousias/homoiousias debate is completely impossible to conceive out of Judeo-Hellenic thought. (If I may coin a term to describe the mixed Aramaic-speaking and Greek-speaking Jewish population which was the core of Apostolic Christianity.)

It is easy though to understand elements of its attraction for the more mystically minded early Christians.

This is very different from the New Age approach which seems to me to reflect more a Woolworths' 99 pence pick 'n' mix bag version of faith or theology or religious practice.

In both cases I see it as people interpreting the world through their own cultural lens. The difference is that the Greco-Roman lens was a bifocal attempting to see both near (the earthly) and far (the heavenly), whereas the modern ecclectic lens is a kaleidescope that produces pretty patterns of fractured images without focus or context.

[Ramo]

So it comes to this. An attempt to deflect and not take a stand and delay because it puts him at odds with a constituency marks him as a champion of the same aggrieved group. Doubleplus good there. I notice his tack is simply anti-repug but no, repeat NO statement as to how gay unions should indeed be recognized and to what extent. How freakin courageous.

I just watched the debate that a local TV station had on the race, and he unambiguously said that he was for marriage equality. Pretty cool guy.

By that same line of thinking I suppose those repugs who said that there were much greater things for the Massachusetts judiciary to deal with then the issue of gay marriage were just doing their best at being models of inclusion and tolerance.

That's absurd. Ignoring his statement on the debate, there's a stark difference between saying that Congress actively reducing gay rights is bad and the Courts actively increasing gay rights is bad. It ain't a subtle distinction.

If one looks at the election statistiics yes the field was extremely competitive with a field of 5 meaningful candidates. That of course only underscores the effect of having a countable voting block to support your candidacy. The black contginent represents 10% of the voters in that district. With a whopping 21% turnout a DFL recommendation, a whitewash by Mordecia SpeKtor of the AJW, a commited black voting block its no wonder he got a rousing 41% mandate (smirk) clearly showing he was widely supported by all minority groups

It's not like there was a shortage of solid candidates running. The outgoing Congressman's IIRC CoS, whom the Congressman endorsed, for instance. So please explain exactly how did he get the DFL endorsement? I guess they're all anti-Semites too.

Yep, he ran a grassroots campaign modelled on Wellstone's, on bringing together disparate communities in the district that felt excluded from tmainstream politics. Like the LGBT community. What an evil Islamofascist.

(for the record the other top 2 candidates had 52% of the vote but I suppose the people that voted for those 2 other candidates must have been the real antisemites and racists cause no way Ellison would have ever appealed to that type of crowd )

Yes because there are MUST be a huge number of anti-Semites and racists somewhere represented by one of the candidates. 'Specially with all those Somalisi in the district, don-cha-know.

[Ramo]

And thanks MrFun. Moyers is badass (and an evangelical Christian).

[Straybow]

Originally posted by MrFun

Nope, nothing to back the accusation of hatefulness.
Yep, just the typical demonization of the eeeeevil conservatives.

Move along; nothing to see here.

Just like it was unfair for liberals to demonize pro-segregation white supremacists during the 1950s and 60s, right?

Absolutely not. The comparison is as shallow as the accusations of hatred.

This is a classic case of the liberal tactic, in the wake of successes in civil rights, to champion special interests in order to elevate themselves to the same level of (self-) righteousness as the civil rights advocates of the 50s and 60s.

As one wag pointed out, the problem with liberalism is that once you genuinely help your cause succeed they don't need you any more. When blacks are truly equal to whites they don't need the Democrats' patronizing. So now a significant amount of effort is expended, among both whites and blacks, in keeping the blacks "on the reservation" granted them in the Democratic party.

So, as with Ramo, I'll recreate the core of the non-bigoted argument against gay marriage without the drama of debate:

• Sex Does Not Equal Marriage
• Tolerance Does Not Equal Endorsement

[Elok]

I'm not going to argue that new-age syncretism is new (I don't know enough to say for sure), only that as religions go it seems to invariably suck. IMO. Half of it leads to pseudoscience and the other half just makes no consistent sense/offers no useful guidance.

[Flip McWho]

Sex Does Not Equal Marriage

So being gay is all about taking it in the but and two gay people can't have a relationship together that is equivalent to a heterosexual relationship?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by MrFun

Nope, nothing to back the accusation of hatefulness.
Yep, just the typical demonization of the eeeeevil conservatives.

Move along; nothing to see here.

Just like it was unfair for liberals to demonize pro-segregation white supremacists during the 1950s and 60s, right?

Absolutely not. The comparison is as shallow as the accusations of hatred.

This is a classic case of the liberal tactic, in the wake of successes in civil rights, to champion special interests in order to elevate themselves to the same level of (self-) righteousness as the civil rights advocates of the 50s and 60s.

As one wag pointed out, the problem with liberalism is that once you genuinely help your cause succeed they don't need you any more. When blacks are truly equal to whites they don't need the Democrats' patronizing. So now a significant amount of effort is expended, among both whites and blacks, in keeping the blacks "on the reservation" granted them in the Democratic party.

So, as with Ramo, I'll recreate the core of the non-bigoted argument against gay marriage without the drama of debate:

• Sex Does Not Equal Marriage
• Tolerance Does Not Equal Endorsement

Historians and legalists draw legitimate parallels with past civil rights movement to today's civil rights struggle concerning gays and lesbians; it's not something that is distortive.

And nice way to unfairly degenerate the complete humanness of relationships between gays and lesbians by reducing it to merely sex.

I know my sisters would be seriously insulted if I made lewd comments that their marriage is just about ****ing; no love involved at all. It's just about the act of having sex; the same with all other animal species, thus denying the humanity aspect of relationships between gays and lesbians.

[Straybow]

• Sex Does Not Equal Marriage
• Having A "Relationship" Does Not Equal Marriage
• Tolerance Does Not Equal Endorsement

Happy now?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Straybow

• Sex Does Not Equal Marriage
• Having A "Relationship" Does Not Equal Marriage
• Tolerance Does Not Equal Endorsement

Happy now?

So what about gays and lesbians who want to get married dumbass??


And love how you had to put "relationships" in quotation marks to imply that those relationships are any less legitimate or dignified if they consist of gay and lesbian couples.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


My impression was that individual Romans DID pick up things based on individual need and taste, whatever catalogues may have been published. I get my impression from Lane "Pagans and Christians" but perhaps I misremember.

By all means make light of what I actually write about the religious practices of the pagan Romans.

How can a precise reference to the official catalogue of their gods, the Indigitamenta, compare with an 'impression' you gleaned from Robin Lane Fox's (not Lane's) 'Pagans and Christians'...

We're talking about a state religion here, so there's no 'may' about it.

As Colin Wells puts it in 'The Roman Empire':

Sacrifice and ritual formed part of almost every activity of daily life, from the offering in the family shrine of even the most humble home to the great state ceremonial accompanying or preceding every act of emperor or magistrate.

A 3rd Century calendar of religious festivals and sacrifices to be celebrated by the garrison of Dura-Europos on the Euphrates shows how difficulty it was for a Christian or Jew to serve in the army.

Nor should we underestimate the importance of the imperial cult... ...most scholars have approached paganism in general with implicit and anachronistic Christian assumptions.

...the Romans whose obsessive concern was with the right performance of the ritual, not with the participants' emotions.

...when Rome suffered a defeat, the first reaction was to look for some ritual omitted, or omen overlooked, not to blame incompetent leadership.

'Obsessive concern with right performance' 'daily sacrifice and ritual'- that does sound rather rigorous and disciplined doesn't it ?

Eric Nelson in 'The Complete Idiot's Guide To The Roman Empire':

Religion

Roman religion had several layers. The Romans had family practices and beliefs that originated from time immemorial and community practuices that were shared by the peoples of Italy. They also, at another level, adopted customs and beliefs from other influential cultures such as the Etruscans and Greeks.

And from Egypt-Syria and the Parthian Empire and even the Celts- but the new gods were given distinctive Roman associations and a place in Roman worship.

Nelson again:

Roman state religious practice ...developed to encompass all these and to represent Rome as a whole.

Home and land were sacred spaces, with gods of boundaries, thresholds, doorways, the hearth and the ever present family ancestors.

The Romans were in fact often suspicious of foreign religions which tended towards the charismatic and overtly emotional exhibitions of devotion.

In 205 B.C. only on the orders of the Sibylline Oracle was devotion to the Eastern Great Mother allowed, and in 186 B.C. , the Senate forbade the worship of Bacchus.

Even the Cult of Isis demanded purity from its devotees, although it did not expect exclusivity of their worship.


This is all rather removed from the contemporary unstructured 'if it feels good' adopt it approach of New Age beliefs.

Traditional Christianity discourages overt syncretism. Nonetheless it occured, thoguh probably not with the "zealous converts" who would have been more orthodox in thought. My impression is that the spread of Christiainity (after Rome) was more due to masses following the conversion of a king, than to zealous converts, which would account for pagan survivals.

There's many reasons for Christianity's spread (especially in the West) after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

The Church accommodated some areas of pagan belief by simply building on previous pagan holy sites, and by rededicating holy wells to saints, rather than water gods.

The Church had to step in to organise society when the Empire collapsed, and so we see in the Frankish Empire administrative districts based on bishops' sees.

At the same time, there was not one Christianity, but several, with heresies springing up hither and yon- in times of acute social stress this is hardly surprising, since heresies tend to be conservative, looking back to a supposedly purer form of the faith.

There was also concerted missionary work, by the Irish Church in particular, which established monasteries all over Europe.

But few Christian converts were like Augustine, for better or worse.

Actually, like most converts, many were.

Conversion to an exclusivist monotheistic faith made zealots out of people, as a familiarity with the philosophical and physical battles between different Christian sects shows.

'The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs' indicates by this simple formula:

Honour to Caesar as Caesar, but fear to God

These people could have saved themselves from torture and death by simply accomodating imperial worship alongside their Christianity, but chose not to do so, at great personal cost.

Saturninus the proconsul read out the decree from the tablet: Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Donata, Vestia, Secunda and the rest having confessed that they live according to the Christian rite, since after opportunity offered them of returning to the custom of the Romans they have obstinately persisted, it is determined that they be put to the sword.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/scillitan.html

In literature, Im thinking Hesse, maybe some of the beat poets. Really, you must forgive me, this is part of the culture ive been neglecting lately.

Herman Hesse predates the New Age movement by several decades.

I really suspect 95% of day to day medieval piety was pretty unintellectual.

Which has nothing to do with Aquinas. I'm addressing and comparing the fundamental ways of thinking, the intellectual grounding of Mediaeval Christianity and the New Age movement, not Mediaeval Peasant Piety in the Vosges with spiritual shopping in Calistoga.

The homoousias/homoiousias debate is completely impossible to conceive out of Judeo-Hellenic thought.

Straybow


I agree- I suspect it comes about because of the falling out between the Judaizing and Hellenizing sides of the early Christian movement, especially after the failure of the Jewish Revolt under Simon bar Kochba.

What strikes me most about it is that people are arguing about abstruse matters when none of them have any way of confirming the matters at hand.

In both cases I see it as people interpreting the world through their own cultural lens. The difference is that the Greco-Roman lens was a bifocal attempting to see both near (the earthly) and far (the heavenly), whereas the modern ecclectic lens is a kaleidescope that produces pretty patterns of fractured images without focus or context.

The main difficulty is that there is no accepted 'Gospel of Jesus'.

Although, to be fair, even that would have been subject to inevitable interpretation after his demise.

There's support in the synoptic gospels for the 'human only' viewpoint of Jesus and evidence too for the 'human and divine' view of Jesus- the early Jewish Christians and the Hellenizing Christians (influenced by Paul) clearly differed on this, as the Epistle of James and Galatians show.