0
   

... So help me, Allah.

 
 
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 10:02 am
America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on[/b][/size]
By Dennis Prager

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

A Palestinian woman holds the Koran during a Hamas rally against Israeli troops operation in northern Gaza strip November 3, 2006. Israeli troops shot and killed two Palestinian women acting as human shields between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen during a clash at a Gaza mosque on Friday, witnesses said, before the gunmen escaped. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 6,232 • Replies: 252
No top replies

 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 10:06 am
I'm trying to decide if this is an important issue or not. Seriously. It's difficult.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 10:08 am
I think that the entire premise in the article is nonsense. People who do not believe in the bible can make an affirmation in court. It seems to me that if a person is to be sworn in, he needs to swear on something that has meaning to him.

The bible has no religious meaning to a Muslim. He could just as easily put his hand on "Gone With the Wind". The idea is that the Koran has the same meaning to a follower of Allah as the New Testament has to a follower of Jesus.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 10:13 am
The argument is specious. Nothing in the Constitution requires anyone to take an oath on the Bobble, or even to take an oath at all.

Article II, Section 2, ends with:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


It was well known in the eighteenth century that many Christians objected to taking an oath, and to swearing on the Bobble, considering it an offense to their beliefs. This is why the Constitution allows person to make an affirmation rather than to take an oath.

Furthermore, Article VI, third paragraph reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Once again, persons are allowed to make an affirmation rather than to take an oath. I suspect that a strong argument could be made that requiring someone to swear upon the Bobble would constitute a religious test. Mr. Prager is full of horsiepoop.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 10:29 am
Re: ... So help me, Allah.
Dennis Prager wrote:
What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Actually, it doesn't matter what book it is. There doesn't even have to be a book. The bible doesn't give an oath any kind of magical powers.

Dennis Prager wrote:
Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.

Well then that just reinforces the point that the book is completely unrelated to the validity of the oath.

Dennis Prager wrote:
Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon.

Maybe they should.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 10:37 am
That's telling him.

He better put a "Merry Christmas" sign on his office door, too.

His office staff should answer the telephone, "Merry Christmas"--unless it's Eastertide.

Otherwise, it's "Slaughter them Infidels" or at least recount the votes.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 10:45 am
(holy)bookmark
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 10:49 am
This thread reminds me of a joke. Smile

The first Jewish president
Okay it's an email joke, so forgive me. I can't resist:

The year is 2012 and the United States of America has recently elected the first woman as well as the first Jewish president, Susan Goldfarb.

She calls up her mother a few weeks after election day and says, "So, Mom, I assume you will be coming to my inauguration?"

"I don't think so. It's a ten hour drive, your father isn't as young as he used to be, and my gout is acting up again."

"Don't worry about it Mom, I'll send Air Force One to pick you up and take you home. And a limousine will pick you up at your door."

"I don't know. Everybody will be so fancy-schmantzy, what on earth would I wear?"

"Oh Mom" replies Susan, "I'll make sure you have a wonderful gown custom-made by the best designer in New York."

"Honey," Mom complains, "you know I can't eat those rich foods you and your friends like to eat."

The President-to-be responds, "Don't worry Mom. The entire affair is going to be handled by the best caterer in New York, kosher all the way.

Mom, I really want you to come."

So Mom reluctantly agrees and on January 21, 2013, Susan Goldfarb is being sworn in as President of the United States of America.

In the front row sits the new president's mother, who leans over to a senator sitting next to her.

"You see that woman over there with her hand on the Bible, becoming President of the United States?"

The Senator whispers back, "Yes I do."

Says Mom proudly, "Her brother's a doctor."
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 11:04 am
Another joke, Matthew 5, 33
"Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.'
34
But I say to you, do not swear at all; 23 not by heaven, for it is God's throne;
35
nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
36
Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.
37
24 Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes,' and your 'No' mean 'No.' Anything more is from the evil one.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 11:41 am
Quote:
Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible.


Wish I could punch this a$$hole in the face

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 04:08 pm
Setanta wrote:
The argument is specious. Nothing in the Constitution requires anyone to take an oath on the Bobble, or even to take an oath at all.

Article II, Section 2, ends with:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


It was well known in the eighteenth century that many Christians objected to taking an oath, and to swearing on the Bobble, considering it an offense to their beliefs. This is why the Constitution allows person to make an affirmation rather than to take an oath.

Furthermore, Article VI, third paragraph reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Once again, persons are allowed to make an affirmation rather than to take an oath. I suspect that a strong argument could be made that requiring someone to swear upon the Bobble would constitute a religious test. Mr. Prager is full of horsiepoop.


Or to even take an oath at all Then there's this in your post as well, Before he enters the Execution of his office, he shall take the following OATH or affirmation" Article II section 2.
Which is it, your word or the Constitution?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 04:26 pm
For the dull-witted, who might actually be deceived by the witless complaint of the Madame of the Lone Star Whorehouse--an affirmation is not an oath, which is why the text of the Constitution reads: he shall take the following Oath or[/u] Affirmation (emphasis added). I'm going to assume that most readers here understand the use of the conjunction "or," but as the evidence of the Madame's snide attempt at a rejoinder is that i cannot assume that all readers understand it, i'll explain. The person taking office can take an oath, but if the person does not wish to swear, the person can make an affirmation.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 04:31 pm
Setanta wrote:
For the dull-witted, who might actually be deceived by the witless complaint of the Madame of the Lone Star Whorehouse--an affirmation is not an oath, which is why the text of the Constitution reads: he shall take the following Oath or[/u] Affirmation (emphasis added). I'm going to assume that most readers here understand the use of the conjunction "or," but as the evidence of the Madame's snide attempt at a rejoinder is that i cannot assume that all readers understand it, i'll explain. The person taking office can take an oath, but if the person does not wish to swear, the person can make an affirmation.

& if there are dummys that do not understand OATH OR affirmation, then see your shrink.
One is required to take one or the other.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 04:36 pm
That's correct, and those who don't wish to swear, who don't wish to take an oath, can make an affirmation.

Not very bright, are you?
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 04:45 pm
Setanta wrote:
That's correct, and those who don't wish to swear, who don't wish to take an oath, can make an affirmation.

Not very bright, are you?

Bright enough to keep up with you, but that doesn't take much.
Still haven't come up with anything original, huh.
What do you do for a living, wash the players jock straps? Fumes have gotten to you have they?
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 12:17 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Setanta wrote:
That's correct, and those who don't wish to swear, who don't wish to take an oath, can make an affirmation.

Not very bright, are you?

Bright enough to keep up with you, but that doesn't take much.
Still haven't come up with anything original, huh.
What do you do for a living, wash the players jock straps? Fumes have gotten to you have they?


At least concede that you's been got.
Otherwise, you don't look like you're even keeping up with him, which is what you claim to be you minimum.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 12:18 pm
I'd drop and F-Bomb on it if I were asked to "swear on the bible".
I have no respect for it and find it completely irrational to think that laying my hand on it will give any more truth, meaning or sincerity to my words.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 12:25 pm
Setanta wrote:
The argument is specious. Nothing in the Constitution requires anyone to take an oath on the Bobble, or even to take an oath at all.

Article II, Section 2, ends with:

.......no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


kind of says it all, doesn't it ? the founding fathers intended for the government, and by extension, the american nation to be of a secular nature. free to worship, or not, as you please with no government involvement whatsoever.

if people really feel the need to lean on a book to keep them to their word, why not use the websters dictionary ? because, if your word is no good, a whole stack of bibles, korans, torahs, gitas and whatnot are absolutely meaningless.

as in;
Quote:


this from the biggest, loudest bible thumper to ever have inhabited the oval office.. in fact, he even put his hand on...

Quote:
...the same 18th Century King James bible that was used to swear in first US President George Washington....


yep. webster's dictionary would be better. or with ol' bushy, maybe it should be a thesaurus.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 01:27 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The argument is specious. Nothing in the Constitution requires anyone to take an oath on the Bobble, or even to take an oath at all.

Article II, Section 2, ends with:

.......no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


kind of says it all, doesn't it ? the founding fathers intended for the government, and by extension, the american nation to be of a secular nature. free to worship, or not, as you please with no government involvement whatsoever.

if people really feel the need to lean on a book to keep them to their word, why not use the websters dictionary ? because, if your word is no good, a whole stack of bibles, korans, torahs, gitas and whatnot are absolutely meaningless.

as in;
Quote:


this from the biggest, loudest bible thumper to ever have inhabited the oval office.. in fact, he even put his hand on...

Quote:
...the same 18th Century King James bible that was used to swear in first US President George Washington....


yep. webster's dictionary would be better. or with ol' bushy, maybe it should be a thesaurus.

no gov't involvement whatsoever, then how it it that the secularists can successfully get rid of anything Christian in the public square yet allow the religious symbols of other religions? Is the no involvement whatsoever?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 01:42 pm
Quote:
G.W.Bush - "I don't think nation-building missions are worthwhile."
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000


I do believe that he meant this. Once he came into office, however, his handlers had other ideas for him to pursue.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » ... So help me, Allah.
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/24/2014 at 10:12:45