Reply
Fri 1 Dec, 2006 05:03 am
I received this via E-mail from the American Family Association.
Quote:A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath
What book will America base it's values on, the Bible or the Koran?
Please take a moment to read the following TownHall.com column by Dennis Prager, who is a Jew. After reading the column, take the suggest action at the bottom of this email. After you have read it, please forward it to your friends and family.
America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
By Dennis Prager - Tuesday, November 28, 2006
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.
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. (End Commentary)
I have always considered the AFA to be another religious hate group, a hate group that seems to have a large following among conservative Christians.
First amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
JoefromChicago has had a thread on this topic running for several days now. The Constitution does not require anyone to swear an oath, and does not require the use of the bible. Those who do not wish to swear an oath can make an affirmation instead. The final two paragraphs of Article II, Section One read:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: [emphasis added]
"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."
And, the final paragraph of Article IV ("Debts, Supremacy, Oaths") 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. (emphases added)
Many Christians are opposed to swearing oaths, and consider that to be taking the Lord's Name in vain. In particular, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, members of the Society of Friends--the "Quakers"--were opposed to taking oaths. That is why provision is made for someone entering upon office to make an affirmation rather than taking an oath. No part of the Constitution requires anyone to swear upon a bible, nor to add the words "so help me God" to any such oath or affirmation. This is just another example of the hatefulness of narrow-minded Christians. Despite the protestations of the religious right, not all Christians agree with this drivel.
Wonder what a Hindu would swear on.
There is a very good reason for the inclusion in the Constitution of a prohibition on religious tests for public office. In England in the 17th century, two acts were passed which required anyone holding public office in England to be a professing member of the Church of England. The specific intent was to exclude Catholics and Nonconformists (those who were Protestant, but not Church of England adherents) from holding public office in England. It was further alleged, after the passage of these acts, that Catholics and Nonconformists were taking communion at Anglican services with the sole purpose of qualifying for public office, while not actually adhering to the established church. Therefore, in 1711, in the reign of Queen Anne, the Occasional Conformity Act was passed, to disqualify those who were alleged to take Anglican communion only for the purpose of qualifying for public office. The men who wrote the Constitution were well aware of these acts and the purpose of their provisions, and intended that such religious tests would not be used in the United States.
You can read the Wikipedia article about the Corporation Act here.
You can read the Wikipedia article about The Test Act here.
You can read the Wikipedia article about The Occasional Conformity Act here.
In another hilarious development, the originator of this canard, Mr. Prager, has been shown to be a liar.
In this Think Progress-dot-org article, the office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives states that no one is required to be sworn in on the bible or any other document.
Quote:But Prager's column is based on one other glaring error: the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book. The Office of the House Clerk confirmed to ThinkProgress that the swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution. The Clerk spokesperson said neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, had ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony.
Thanks to Cyclo for finding that one.
The amazing thing about this psuedoflap is that
The Onion is not its source.
Some fundamentalist Christians seem to feel that persecution is part of a proper holiday celebration.
If you don't brandish the cross, then you can't wear the crown.
And, oh by the way, the Koran didn't replace the Bible as a text you too can swear on ---- but it might have been so mentioned recently; besides, you can affirm in other ways and have always been able to.
Whattacrockashit.
The guy wants to swear with his hand on the book he uses in his religion. Big frikkin whoop.
I'll take my oath with my hand deep in my pocket, thankee.
Dennis Prager is a very popular Conservative talk-radio host. If you've ever listened to his show, this wouldn't surprise you.
I am sure that this is how most conservative's feel.
I suggested in another thread that we use a copy of thee US Constitution for swearing-in.
NickFun wrote:I suggested in another thread that we use a copy of thee US Constitution for swearing-in.
Right wingnuts would never go for that. They'll accuse you of taking God out of the government.
And we all know what happens when we piss off God----9/11.
More on this issue.
Quote:Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Saturday, Dec. 2, 2006 10:07 p.m. EST
Democrat's Quran at Oath Plan Criticized
Keith Ellison, who will become the first Muslim member of Congress next month, has offended some conservatives with his plan to use the Quran during his ceremonial swearing-in.
The decision by Ellison, D-Minn., to use the Muslim holy book for the ceremony instead of the Bible triggered an angry column by Dennis Prager on the Web site Townhall.com this week.
Headlined, "America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on," Prager argued that using the Quran for the ceremony "undermines American civilization."
"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," he wrote. "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."
Conservative bloggers have picked up the criticism and run with it.
Ellison was unavailable for comment Friday, but his incoming chief of staff, Kari Moe, dismissed the brouhaha.
"I think the criticism is being flamed by the politics of division that were rejected in the '06 election cycle," said Moe, who worked for 10 years for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn.
Moe, speaking in a telephone interview, noted that the tradition is for all members of Congress to be sworn in together on the House floor. It's in the photo-op ceremony that a Bible is used - or in Ellison's case, the Quran.
But Prager argued in a telephone interview that the ceremony was no less significant than the actual swearing-in.
"Oh, that's the whole point - it's exactly because it's ceremonial that it matters to me," he said. "Ceremonies matter. Ceremonies are exceedingly important. That is the way a society states what is most significant to it."
Prager argued that the issue wasn't about freedom of religion.
"I want Jews like myself to take the oath on the Bible, even though the New Testament is not our Bible," he said.
Asked if it would be a problem for a Jewish lawmaker to take the oath on a Bible that included only the Old Testament, Prager responded, "Yes, it would," because he said the point is to honor the "Bible of this country."
But despite writing that Ellison shouldn't serve in Congress if he doesn't take an oath with the Bible, Prager said he didn't think Ellison should be banned from serving.
"I don't think anything legal should be done about this," he said.
Moe said the issue was pretty straightforward.
"Religious freedom is a tradition in our country," she said.
Ellison won an open seat race to replace longtime Democratic Rep. Martin Sabo, who is retiring.
© 2006 Associated Press.
Religious freedom, like speech, is a tradition in this country but, as we have seen, there are some conservatives who don't like it.
Quote:Saying "there ought to be limits to freedom," Gov. George W. Bush has filed a legal complaint against the owners of a Web site that lampoons his White House bid.
http://www.rtmark.com/old/more/articles/bushdallas0522bush1bushsite.htm
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace