Right-Wing Radio Host Fabricates Controversy To Attack First Muslim Congressman
Right-Wing Radio Host Fabricates Controversy To Attack First Muslim Congressman
Right-wing radio host Dennis Prager wrote a column earlier this week claiming that Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, had “announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.” Prager claimed this “act undermines American civilization,” and compared it to being sworn in with a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”
Bloggers on the left and right — including Taylor Marsh, Steven Benen, Eugene Volokh, Stephen Bainbridge — have torn apart Prager’s argument on constitutional grounds.
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. (Occassionally, Members pose for symbolic photo-ops with their hand on a Bible.)
Below, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is sworn in last year by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) with his hand on the rostrum:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Bearing false witness, Mr. Prager, is a no-no.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:52 pmhad “announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.â€
1) the bible of Islam, the KoranWTF????
2) IMO, no religious book should be used in any government´s ceremony unless it is a religious state. Separation of church and state, right?
November 30th, 2006 at 1:52 pmHe is also attacking every person who voted for the guy.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:52 pmWow, it sure makes the term: ‘religious nut’ seem quite redundant doesn’t it?
Religion makes people crazy. I’ll follow the PHILOSOPHY of Jesus (you know, peace, help the poor, etc), but I’ll NEVER be convinced he was the son of some magic man in the sky. Only a nut would believe that.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:53 pmInteresting. Along these lines, I don’t believe you are required to sware on a Bible in any court of law either. I believe you can request an alternate text and or none at all, but I don’t spend much time in court rooms, so I could be blowing smoke..:)
November 30th, 2006 at 1:53 pmfile under, “cartoon characters”
November 30th, 2006 at 1:53 pmClearly, we live in a fact free world. And should there actually be any facts, and should those facts counter your own sense of truthiness, why, then, just ignore them.
Life is much simpler if facts don’t intrude.
Jake
November 30th, 2006 at 1:54 pmWait… they’re trying to use reason and facts to argue with Prager?!? Shit, that’s like trying science to argue with the Christianists that Noah couldn’t have been riding around on a dinosaur… It doesn’t work.
But nice to see Prager did his homework as any good wingnut pundit — funny how they always like to preach from a position of knowing as little as possible about the subject upon which they suddenly want to edumacate us all.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:55 pm…and THAT’s why they’re called ‘wackos’!
November 30th, 2006 at 1:59 pmSorry, but I’m confused about one thing. Does this mean Ellison didn’t make the comment in the first place? Is it merely a “claim” Prager made, as Think Progress claims
I don’t particularly care if Ellison said this or not, except that as a Congressman, perhaps he should’ve known that he’s not really swearing an oath on the Bible or any religious text.
But if he never made that comment in the first place, then not only is Prager insulting Ellison’s religion, and the voters who elected him, but he had to lie about it to make his totally stupid point to begin with.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:01 pmAny Repub/Neocon/troll wanna defend this one? Wow what an a$$. We have lieing, slandering and religious bigotry all rolled up in one big steaming pile called Dennis Prager.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:02 pmAmazing how far some of these W-loving Media Whores will go to make complete asses of themselves, ie, Prager in this case, Limbaugh claiming that Sherrod Brown is black, Powerline convinced the Terri Schiavo talking points memo was a Dem fiasco, etc
“Mission Accomplished” Indeed!
November 30th, 2006 at 2:04 pmAnother ‘onion’ head simply makes his own stories to back up his racist point and remarks.. No religious book is used to take the oath of office…this man making this up, then he claims the congressman by doing so somehow linked to Hitler….another sicko
November 30th, 2006 at 2:04 pmWhy should facts get in the way of what they want to say? He wants to make a ficticious point to keep his ignorant base riled up and truth can nott get in his way.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:06 pmSo, Mr. Prager is falsifying controversies as if there aren’t more important things to be discussing–like poverty or the UN Millennium Development Goals. According to the Borgen Project, the US spends $420 billion a year on defense, when only $19 billion would eradicate poverty and hunger. Clearly, this issue has fallen off the political radar.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:09 pmChrist, I knew this was coming.
Can you just imagine how Mer-kins would react if Ahmadinejad compared the Old Testament to Mein Kampf?
You wouldn’t need a draft, that’s for sure.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:09 pmAs a conservative, I think that if you want to use whatever religious book (as a personal choice) to signify the oath not just to the people but to your God….So be it. There is nothing wrong with showing your faith. That is what America is all about. I think it’s great that a congressman can display his religion proudly as he is taking his oath.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:12 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/profile?user=seeprogress
November 30th, 2006 at 2:13 pmRead Thinkprogress, Watch SEEPROGRESS
Rush Limpballs picked up Prager’s lies and repeated them on his “dis-infotainment” program today. I just love listening to Limpballs these days. He’s all hopped up on oxycontin again and he’s just plain outrageous and hilarious.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:14 pmThe Justice Department released the new numbers on people in ‘Jail’. About 3 Million Pot Smokers are incarcerated (unconfirmed personal estimate - with 7 Million Americans incarcerated and 55% of those because of drug abuse…), but right wing demagoguing is okay, right? My advice can only be:
November 30th, 2006 at 2:27 pmrelease all those drug abuse folks and lock up the real criminals like Prager, Limpbo and of course the whole administration.
Did Bush have to do this ???? and did it mean anything to that murdering thief
November 30th, 2006 at 2:29 pmBut the article had truthiness. Prager didn’t need facts when he’s got that.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:29 pmDamn, I guess I have to change my handle now. I keep running into duplicate Jakes. Good movie, BTW.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:30 pm=========================================
Robin Marty at:
http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=842
Despite Prager’s insistence that “for all of American
November 30th, 2006 at 2:32 pmhistory, Jews elected to public office have taken
their oath on the Bible, even though they do not
believe in the New Testament,” it is clear that he is
wrong. Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, took the
oath of office on a Torah in 2001. Madeleine Kunin, a
Jewish Immigrant and Governor of Vermont “rested her
left hand on a stack of old prayer books that had
belonged to her mother, grandparents, and great
grandfather” as “a physical expression of the weight
of Jewish history.”
============================================
Robin Marty at:
============================================
http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=842
Despite Prager’s insistence that “for all of American
November 30th, 2006 at 2:34 pmhistory, Jews elected to public office have taken
their oath on the Bible, even though they do not
believe in the New Testament,” it is clear that he is
wrong. Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, took the
oath of office on a Torah in 2001. Madeleine Kunin, a
Jewish Immigrant and Governor of Vermont “rested her
left hand on a stack of old prayer books that had
belonged to her mother, grandparents, and great
grandfather” as “a physical expression of the weight
of Jewish history.”
============================================
test
November 30th, 2006 at 2:34 pmthere you go….. letting facts get in the way of a good story
November 30th, 2006 at 2:35 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/profile?user=seeprogress
November 30th, 2006 at 2:39 pmRead Thinkprogress, Watch SEEPROGRESS
I cannot believe that he had the nerve to call the Quran the “bible of Islam”. Douchebag.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:40 pmslappymagoo -
Keith Ellison did say that he will swear on a Koran. Either he was referring to the photo in which they pose, or he didn’t know that they don’t swear on a book during the official ceremony.
Keith Ellison isn’t a Congressman yet. He’ll be a Congressman in January.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:41 pm#21 …
November 30th, 2006 at 2:41 pmHaving never read “Mein Kampf, and having no intention as of yet to do so, I can’t make any comparison.
I have read the Old Testament of the Christian bible quite extensively, and it is chock full of:
violence, bigotry, made up fairy tales, more violence, prejudices, presumptions, adultery, thievery, more violence still, and the geneology of a bunch of sheepherders from about 5,000 years ago.
Some titallating smut courtesy of good ‘ol king Soloman, which has been about the only thing to come in handy over the years since Sunday school……..
I’ve said this before, but nobody really seems to get it: media stars like Dennis Prager… Sean Hannity… even El Rushbo… are PERFORMERS.
This means they are PERFORMING. Like actors on a stage. The next time you go to a play, stare up at the stage at that Indian princess, and ask yourself if she’s really an drama school grad from New Jersey. Same diff.
My point being: all these right-wing gasbags, whose outrageous commentary gets the gander up of bloggers everywhere, are being attacked here for.. er, well, essentially, reading their lines.
You know quite well that the GOP has the “blast fax”, and it isn’t a stretch that someone writing today’s blast fax simply assumed that the oath of office would likely be taken on a Bible. So, they found a way to build on it, and float another patented Republican “outrage”, by pulling this “Koran” story out of their ass.
If you’d like to prove this to be the fact, do some research to see whether any Malkins or Morgans or Medveds or Hannitys or Coulters or what-have-you also made reference to the “Koran scandal”, before this TP piece came out!
But please… don’t give more credit than credit is due, to another second- or third-tier media slimebag with no brain.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:45 pmWhy is Prager such a lying liar? Why does he bear such a striking resemblance to Denny the Hutt?
November 30th, 2006 at 2:48 pmOf course it does not use the Bible. This is not the first time that congress has included other religions than Christian. Specifically I am thinking of our Jewish members of congress.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:48 pm[…] It’s a mystery. […]
November 30th, 2006 at 2:50 pmDennis, Putz, this is lashon harah of the highest order. Such a shanda, your forebears must be plotzing in their graves.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:57 pmI’ve said this before, but nobody really seems to get it: media stars like Dennis Prager… Sean Hannity… even El Rushbo… are PERFORMERS.
I agree completely Barry. I’ve been telling this to eveyone for a while now, especially my wiger in-laws. Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, etc are performers, more specifically, they are comedians. Everything they say should be laughed at for the farce it is.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:59 pmRight-Wing Radio Host Fabricates….Reality!
November 30th, 2006 at 2:59 pmBelow, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is sworn in last year by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) with his hand on the rostrum:
After the ceremony, Dennis Hastert ate the rostrum, which was made entirely of chocolate.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:01 pmChristianity at its best If Christians can’t have hate, they have nothing.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:03 pmPrager is as ignorant as the day is long. It’s really breathtaking.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:08 pm[…] Update: Prager worse than people thought […]
November 30th, 2006 at 3:13 pmThis is a good thing. The Christians want holy war and want to be in your bedroom during sex and death. I’m just glad they’re so open about it so we know their faces…
November 30th, 2006 at 3:15 pmDing ding ding ding ding
November 30th, 2006 at 3:15 pmPrager’s a bigoted moron.
Neither the US Constitution ( read Article Six ) nor the Christian Bible supports his assertions.
Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12 outright say to take no oathes and that oathes sworn on God, altars or even your own head have no more meaning than what the oath swearer wishes to invest in it.
It’s amazing to me that the people who are most vocal about how the Bible is to be revered and followed in all aspects of life are usually the ones that never bothered to actually read it for themselves.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:17 pmAs a Jew Prager insists on using the Christian Bible for swearing in public officials. Not sure I could sort out all the contradictions in that alone.
Prager is not only wrong, but he’s really quite a smug asshole. I had the misfortune of listening to his radio show years ago when he and a few other wingnuts took over what used to be a good talk radio station, KABC in Los Angeles. I remember his argument against gay marriage — allow that and people will want to marry their pets. Another fine moment was his surprise to find that Timothy McVey had a military background — who could imagine that anyone trained to be a soldier would want to kill people! He sounds like a reasonable guy in his demeanor on the air, but examine what he says and it’s filled with lies, distortions, and contortions of logic that are simply ridiculous. That parallel of the Koran and Mein Kampf he made is of course nonsensical, but in Prager’s mind solid as a rock.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:23 pmYet another Republican Christianist pedophile (though not yet in rehab)?http://www.correntewire.com/ yet_another_republican_christianist_pedophile_though_not_yet_in_rehab
November 30th, 2006 at 3:30 pm“announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.†Prager claimed this “act undermines American civilization,â€
Hello? Hello? The point of taking an oath over a holy book is to instill fear in the one doing the oath, and force him to say the truth.
So is Prager saying that is better than people make oaths over books they don’t consider holy, allowing them to lie without fear? It’s an exaggeration, true, muslims consider the Bible only a bit less holy than the Koran, but this idiot is simply stupid, saying such a silly sentence.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:32 pmI’ve always thought that Prager was a self righteous, arrogant, pontificating a**hole.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:41 pmYes WE know that Prager, Lushballs, O’Lielly, Insanity and coutergeist are performers….but I wish I had a few dollars for the times when wingers write LTE’s and state that we should listen to them, and that Mann Coulter uses FACTS. Unfortunately the people who listen to them, believe them.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:45 pmMore made-up propaganda by the American religious fundamentalists on the right.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:48 pmThe right is far too competent at making mountains out of lies. They get everybody yakking and by the time their mountain is exposed as less than a molehill, they’ve moved on to the next lie.
They are addicted to their lying and certainly won’t stop, but the effort to smack down their B.S. is getting better by the day. Screw ‘em. They dishonor everything positive and honest and spoil everything they touch.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:49 pmStupid “conservatives” are playing to the base. They are trying to rally the stragglers after their annihilation at the polls with the War on Christmas and this “problem” where there is none.
It’s time to get the fear machine back online.
It’s all they got.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:56 pmNever mind…
November 30th, 2006 at 4:01 pmIt’s meaningless anyway. It has nothing whatsoever to do with civilization - Western or otherwise.
Think of all the corrupt politicians throughout history that have sworn upon a holy book. It guarantees nothing.
And then contrast that with all the immoral atheists who have not sworn on a holy book and have corrupted the public trust. Oh, wait, I forgot, Americans have this unfounded fear of non-believers being elected as leaders … as if they somehow atheists have a higher incidence of crime for their lack of belief.
I’ll tell you what the real crime is: Pretending to be honest to the public (as a sacred occasion) and then abandoning that trust. Yet, the public eats it up every time. They are suckers for any politician who pledges allegiance to a deity.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:05 pmThe Reality-Based Community…
Yet again debunks the wing-nuts on parade…
November 30th, 2006 at 4:09 pmDid Prager just make this up? I haven’t been able to find a news story anywhere quoting Ellison saying anything about swearing on the Koran.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:25 pmANY “oath” is sufficient to bind one in the eyes of the law for perjury or contract. Religion never appears in the law and has not for centuries.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:26 pmThis makes tremendous sense. To Hastertthelyingbastard, the podium symbolizes power, and that is his god.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:32 pmHey I just think this is silly, why attack a person based on their religion? I mean what’s next? Putting creationists in camps and making them wear yellow crosses? Let’s nip this in the bud and agree to respect peoples religions, whatever they may be. I do not wish to be judged by my religion (Rastafarianism/Norse Asatro).
November 30th, 2006 at 4:35 pmI will be concerned if Congressman - elect Ellison adds “Allah Akbar” to the oath….
November 30th, 2006 at 4:36 pmDon’t you just love it when the Repugnican whack jobs get it wrong. It appears that facts are just a tad too difficult for them to surmount. I guess thats why Faux “News” and Rush and O’Lielly are so popular - if they had to deal in fact they would have nothing to say.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:39 pm#85 So what if he does?? In his religion God is great. In mine, God is a fairy tale. In yours he is something to fear. Remember dipshit, if you were capable of liberal thought you’d be able to accept “different strokes for different folks” as the classic old song said. Instead, you are one of a million sheep looking for a Judas goat to lead you to the promised land. Happy landing.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:43 pmFact free and proud. Poor dennis life in the 3rd string of wingnuttia is a bear.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:43 pm“Below, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is sworn in last year by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) with his hand on the rostrum”
Yeah, but that’s an AMERICAN rostrum, buddy, not some Commie pinko Islamofascist rostrum!!
November 30th, 2006 at 4:53 pmI went back and read his article, but it still sounds like he’s a christian fundamentalist
1) He claims that America is a christian nation
2) He claims that America is built on the Christian Bible
3) He claims that only people who swear by the testimony of the christian prophet and his saints are qualified to serve this christian nation
He summarizes thusly: “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.”
I mean, the guy’s a Jew. How can he not recognize that Judaism and Christianity have separate Holy books. Does he not know that America was founded by Deists? Moreover, is he not aware of the Establishment clause in the First Amendment? This is all beside the point because he made up both Ellison’s quote and the requirement to swear on the Christian bible.
I’m not sure what amount of context can repair this.
November 30th, 2006 at 5:28 pm#79…….
November 30th, 2006 at 5:29 pmTry saying “Abbra Cadabbra” when you click the Post-I agree box, it probably won’t help, but at least then you can feel as thou you are part of the majic..
#85…
November 30th, 2006 at 5:34 pmHis hand is on the rostrum to steady his bulk, having his other hand in the air like that makes him kind of woozy.
[…] Updated 2006.11.30 5:34 pm: apparently this whole rigamarole was one big waste of time. […]
November 30th, 2006 at 5:35 pm#83 That’s interesting, in mine she’s a barista, makes the foamiest lattes!
November 30th, 2006 at 5:42 pm#83, #90
In mine, he’s a wheelchair-bound physicist with ALS.
November 30th, 2006 at 5:47 pm(Okay, I’m actually an atheist.)
2) IMO, no religious book should be used in any government´s ceremony unless it is a religious state. Separation of church and state, right?
Comment by Juan C — November 30, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
Same rationale for why my school district begins their board meeting every month with a prayer… that seperation of church and state mumbo jumbo…
The hypocrisy from the “Moral” Majority never ceases to disgust me..
November 30th, 2006 at 5:51 pmBenjamin: Judiasm and Christianity share the majority of their respective sets of holy books. America was not founded by Deists, but by Americans, some of whom were Deists (see John Adams for a non-Deist Founder). This has very little to do with the First Amendment, but is covered by Article VI.
Finally, are you sure Ellison’s quote was made up? I’ve seen a few people confirm he did say it, and only you claiming he did not.
Also, to those who think any oath on a holy book in a U.S. government ceremony should be disallowed because of the First Amendment, that’s just bunk. An oath is a personal thing, and the form it takes is calculated to take the individual into consideration. Frankly, I would prefer Ellison took his oath on the Koran rather than the Bible (and I am a “born-again Christian” myself), because he would be more inclined to take his oath seriously that way. But I don’t like the idea of oaths on holy books anyway (seems a bit sacrilegious to me), and prefer simple affirmations (as many early founding Christians did, hence the inclusion of “affirmation” in the Constitution), so whatever.
November 30th, 2006 at 5:56 pm#92
November 30th, 2006 at 5:59 pmTake a trip to the Jefferson & Lincoln Memorials and look around bonehead.
Read Declaration of Independence too idiot.
I will be concerned if Congressman - elect Ellison adds “Allah Akbar†to the oath….
Comment by mighty aphrodite — November 30, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
Good. Now you finally understand why we want ‘under God’ out of the pledge… And seperation or church and state to remain.
You see the danger in one religion. We see the dangers in all religions - including yours.
Ignorant hypocrite.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:01 pm#92
Take a trip to the Jefferson & Lincoln Memorials and look around bonehead.
Read Declaration of Independence too idiot.
Comment by Flaco — November 30, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
On my screen, I am #92. Clearly whomever you are referencing is not the idiot…
November 30th, 2006 at 6:08 pmI will be concerned if Congressman - elect Ellison adds “Allah Akbar†to the oath….
I wonder if such people would be equally concerned about a Christian shouting “Praise be to Jesus” after taking his or her oath. If so, then at least that person has some consistency. If not, then exactly why not?
Members of Congress are under oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. If they do something during that oath that helps convince people that they are taking that oath seriously, then fine.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:08 pmReligion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
There You have it. Those christian opiumheads need to shut up. Christianity *uck*d up this planet.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:09 pmLook what we got with people swearing in “on the bible”, illegal war, unrivaled scandals on K-st. involving uncountable republicans, swindles, CIA agent leak, tax breaks for big oil & rich, officials condoning torture & kidnapping of people around the world, immoral and secret prisons, ya one guy not using a bible swearing, in might be a good change of pace.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:21 pmunbelievable: I think both of you are crazy for seeing that as a serious danger, unless the danger you’re referring to is the modification of the oath itself for ANY individualistic purpose, religious or otherwise, since the oath is written into law (although its current form is a bit paranoid, having come ut of the Civil War). But if your problem is religion in the ceremony at all, well, that’s just crazy.
If Ellison wants to say “Allahu Akbar,” what do I care? He’s just saying “God is great,” and I agree with that, and even if I didn’t (either because I am an atheist, or a theist who believes Allah is not God, etc.), what is it to me?
An individual’s oath is far different from a pledge. A pledge is for everyone. An oath is for an individual, and as the Federal Rules of Evidence says, “Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience and impress the witness’ mind with the duty to do so.”
That’s what Ellison’s oath should do, except the topic is about his duty to the Constitution etc., rather than his duty to testify truthfully. If the best way to impress upon himself the gravity of what he is saying is to put his hand on the Koran and say “Allahu Akbar!” at the end, then in my opinion, he should do precisely that.
I do not believe in Islam, and I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and I am a far-right Republican … but more important than all of that, in this context, is that I want the elected representatives of our nation to uphold the Constitution, and any oath or affirmation that will best impress upon each of them their duty to do so is fine by me.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:22 pmChristianity *uck*d up this planet.
Comment by ItsJustKarma — November 30, 2006 @ 6:09 pm
Amen :D
November 30th, 2006 at 6:24 pmBoo!
November 30th, 2006 at 6:28 pmunbelievable afraid of a little christian?
Prager shows how some religious people go way too far in their hatred of people who don’t believe what they believe, and in the relation of their religion to government.
Many of the atheists here — I am looking at you, ItsJustKarma and unbelievable — show the exact same ills to the other extreme. I used to think atheists were more tolerant people: after all, if you don’t believe in God at all, you’ll generally be tolerant of all people of all religions, right? I was disabused of that folly long ago, thankfully.
The people who seem to be the nice, gentle, tolerant souls are usually the people who are — whatever their views, Christian or Muslim or atheist — thoughtful and confident in their views, and have no need to oppress others to convince themselves. They will gladly share their views with you, but won’t treat you poorly for coming to a different conclusion.
But some people like Prager and ItsJustKarma will be happy to just hate people who think differently from them, for whatever their reasons. And that is what “*uck*s up this planet” more than anything.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:31 pmBut if your problem is religion in the ceremony at all, well, that’s just crazy.
No, it isn’t. It’s endorsing a religion against the intention of the Constitution.
Here’s the danger (since you obviously don’t get it)… Allowing a government to endorse something based on speculation, conjecture and emotions takes away the public’s ability to fight against other speculative, irrational and emotional endorsements.
If Ellison wants to say “Allahu Akbar,†what do I care? He’s just saying “God is great,†and I agree with that, and even if I didn’t (either because I am an atheist, or a theist who believes Allah is not God, etc.), what is it to me?
Well, I am an Atheist and I’ll tell you what it is to me. Holier-than-thou religious nuts forcing your religion upon us and all other non-Christians. We want freedom FROM religion.
An individual’s oath is far different from a pledge.
Not if that nut thinks his personal god talks to him and tells him to start a war with Iraq. And that IS the reality of people who need to publicize their religions. Jesus said that your religion should be kept private. I agree.
That’s what Ellison’s oath should do, except the topic is about his duty to the Constitution etc., rather than his duty to testify truthfully.
I agree. HE should be responsible for his actions. He should. Him.
If the best way to impress upon himself the gravity of what he is saying is to put his hand on the Koran and say “Allahu Akbar!†at the end, then in my opinion, he should do precisely that.
Dangerous. Because it shifts responsibility from the individual to speculative supernatural forces that are neither predictable nor reasonable.
If fear is how religion gets people to behave, then it doesn’t say a lot about those people.
I do not believe in Islam, and I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and I am a far-right Republican … but more important than all of that, in this context, is that I want the elected representatives of our nation to uphold the Constitution, and any oath or affirmation that will best impress upon each of them their duty to do so is fine by me.
Comment by pudge — November 30, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
Unholding the Constitution requires seperation of church and state. If he wants to say a prayer - say it silently to himself. It’s no place to prosletyze.
And as a government employee, neither should it be publicized at a Board of Education Meeting.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:36 pmbut more important than all of that, in this context, is that I want the elected representatives of our nation to uphold the Constitution, and any oath or affirmation that will best impress upon each of them their duty to do so is fine by me.
Comment by pudge — November 30, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
How about they put their hand on a copy of the Constitution?
November 30th, 2006 at 6:36 pmunbelievable afraid of a little christian?
Comment by Flaco — November 30, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
You mean folks who suffer in this life, abuse animals, beat their children, treat tehir women like second class citizens and make decisions based on irrational and insane faith in things that do not exist?
You bet. You people are dangerous.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:38 pmWhat book would atheists swear on?
November 30th, 2006 at 6:39 pmMany of the atheists here — I am looking at you, ItsJustKarma and unbelievable — show the exact same ills to the other extreme.
Oh nonsense - we just want you out of our faces. Stop forcing Christianity on people and we won’t have to stand up to your oppression.
I used to think atheists were more tolerant people: after all, if you don’t believe in God at all, you’ll generally be tolerant of all people of all religions, right? I was disabused of that folly long ago, thankfully.
We are more tolerant. The problem is that because you are not, we have to stand up to you to get you to leave us alone. You mistake that for intolerance. It’s not. It’s a fight against oppression.
They will gladly share their views with you, but won’t treat you poorly for coming to a different conclusion.
Comment by pudge — November 30, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
I don’t care that you’ve come to a different “conclusion” (you really haven’t - you’ve accepted someone else’s opinion). I care that you think you have some entitlement to force it on others.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:43 pmHow about they put their hand on a copy of the Constitution?
Comment by Joefriday — November 30, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
EXACTLY! Simple but brilliant solution - as usual :)
November 30th, 2006 at 6:45 pm#105 Joefriday: that seems silly to me. Though I would personally rather do that than put my hand on the Bible (again, I am a Christian, but I think that is a bit sacrielgious). But let’s say I did believe in oaths on the Bible. As a Christian, I would value that far more than a manmade construction like the Constitution. By swearing on the Bible to uphold the Constitution, I am taking an oath that, for me personally, transcends the Constitution.
By contrast, putting your hand on the Constitution says that you won’t violate the Constitution according to your faith in the Constitution, which is somewhat suspect in the first place, else we wouldn’t bother having you take an oath. Again: it’s silly.
No, I think I will stick with the notion that the oath’s form should be somewhat individualized.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:48 pmBy swearing on the Bible to uphold the Constitution, I am taking an oath that, for me personally, transcends the Constitution.
Comment by pudge — November 30, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
Right there - that’s EXACTLY my point. You put your religion over the Constitution! Which means you will violate its tennents before any of the ridiculous crap in the Bible, not doing what you’ve sworn to do - uphold the Constitution over all else!.
That makes you, and those like you, dangerous and not fit for office - because you will erode the Constitution in the name of your religion. This is what we are against.
Thanks for proving my point. You people usually do.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:56 pm#Pudge:
November 30th, 2006 at 6:56 pmYour reaction is quite funny. But what in your hell makes you think I am atheist? I am just glad that it is not in my name
that your prophet the burning bush goes around and kills legions of people, pollutes this planet and believes climate change is liberal/atheist/communist propaganda. I have more respect for a fool than for you. People like you are the enablers of injustice. I spit on every hipocrite that swears on any religious pamphlet and accepts torture, poverty and misery as ‘God’s’ will. You are as much a opiumhead as Karl Marx has painfully acurate described the whole fairy tale religion.
My tolerance stops way before others get killed because they don’t share your own ‘belief’.
#108: Oh nonsense - we just want you out of our faces. Stop forcing Christianity on people and we won’t have to stand up to your oppression.
I don’t force Christianity on anyone, and yet you lump me together with all Christians. And you are also attacking all religions, not just Christians, so that excuse doesn’t wash on any level.
We are more tolerant. The problem is that because you are not, we have to stand up to you to get you to leave us alone.
No, you (singular) are decidedly far less tolerant than me. I’ve never impugned anyone for their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. You cannot say the same (as this discussion shows).
I don’t care that you’ve come to a different “conclusion†(you really haven’t - you’ve accepted someone else’s opinion). I care that you think you have some entitlement to force it on others.
Quite false. First, no, I came to my own conclusion (more intolerance from you: you assume I am nonthinking because I believe in God). Second, no, you do care about my conclusion, as you attack me for what my conclusion is. Again, I’ve not tried to force anything on anyone. You’re just making that up out of thin air; it’s your own personal straw man to attack, since you’ve got nothing else to attack me on.
I am, again, a born-again Christian. I believe prostitution, most “illict” drug use, and homosexuality are all sinful. And I support the legalization of prostitution, at least some “illicit” drugs, and civil unions for homosexual couples (and before you cry “separate but equal!”, realize I want gov’t to get out of the marriage business altogether, so heterosexual couples would get the same civil unions). Basically, I am a libertarian, so as long as you are not causing direct harm to someone else, you should be allowed to do what you want.
I am not the stereotypical Christian straw man you are attacking.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:04 pm#pudge:
November 30th, 2006 at 7:06 pmYour hypocrisy stinks into the sky. The bible (’God’s words, right?) states explicitly “Thou shall not swear”.
You want to work for the government, govern the people?
Just say: “I promise to do everything I can to protect my fellow citizens from any harm.” End of story.
Now go and look what will happen on the 13th day of ‘creation’.
#112 ItsJustKarma:
But what in your hell makes you think I am atheist?
The fact that you quoted, and cited it as authoritative, Marx saying that religion is simply the opiate of the people. *shrug*
I have more respect for a fool than for you. People like you are the enablers of injustice.
And you say that of me because … I said you should not be intolerant of people for merely because they have religious beliefs? That makes me an “enabler of injustice”?
I spit on every hipocrite that swears on any religious pamphlet and accepts torture, poverty and misery as ‘God’s’ will. You are as much a opiumhead as Karl Marx has painfully acurate described the whole fairy tale religion.
What’s that got to do with me? I never claimed any such things were God’s will. Like unbelievable, you are attacking a straw man caricature, because the things you are attacking do not apply to me at all.
And I think you just confirmed here that you are an atheist, so why complain that I correctly deduced you are an atheist?
My tolerance stops way before others get killed because they don’t share your own ‘belief’.
No, yours stops long before that. You are attacking people, like me, for merely having religious beliefs, not because we are killing anyone for not sharing our beliefs, as I’ve never done that, and have never even tacitly supported or accepted it.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:11 pmLike unbelievable, you are attacking a straw man caricature, because the things you are attacking do not apply to me at all.
Nonsense. We are attacking your own admission that you put the Bible before the Constitution…
I’ve never done that, and have never even tacitly supported or accepted it.
Comment by pudge — November 30, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
You are against the war in Iraq? From the beginning?
Should I even bother to mention the Inquisition? Salem witch burnings? Etc?
Funny how you couldn’t refute my posts, and just made some secondary comment about me in a response to ItsJustKarma.
You have been debunked. You really should quit while you’re only this far behind…
November 30th, 2006 at 7:19 pm#pudge
your response shows that I am dead on right.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:20 pmHow long before pudge starts the War on Christmas nonsense?
5…4…3…2…
November 30th, 2006 at 7:23 pm#114 ItsJustKarma:
Your hypocrisy stinks into the sky.
Perhaps, but how would you know? I demonstrated no hypocrisy.
The bible (’God’s words, right?) states explicitly “Thou shall not swearâ€.
Right. And?
You want to work for the government, govern the people? Just say: “I promise to do everything I can to protect my fellow citizens from any harm.†End of story.
Well, no, I disagree. I like the existing oath, though it could be trimmed down, but it must minimally emphasize support and defense of the Constitution as the primary obligation.
And anyway, how does that show me to be hypocritical? I said many times in this discussion, I personally do not believe in taking oaths. My first comment in this discussion read:
So, sorry, I am not being hypocritical. Once again, you are attacking me for views I did not express and do not hold.
That said, I am not sure precisely what Matthew 5:33-37 means. It is contrasting swearing falsely to not swearing at all. It could mean don’t swear, but it could also mean that it is better not to swear, than to swear falsely. I lean toward the former, and therefore, I am personally not in favor of oaths. But I’ve not done much in-depth study of the matter, so I may perhaps change my mind one day, after having done so (I read Greek enough to do so, and am capable of sifting through the many scholarly works on the subject). For example, I’ve read some who say the word “oath” there has a specific meaning, and does not refer to formal religious or legal oaths. I don’t know.
Even apart from this particular reference in Scripture, however, I still dislike oaths. I detest falsehood, and when I say something, I mean it. I see no reason to swear an oath, because that implies that the things I say normally are less reliable. Simply affirming that I will uphold the Constitution would be sufficient, for me.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:27 pmYou mean folks who suffer in this life, abuse animals, beat their children, treat tehir women like second class citizens and make decisions based on irrational and insane faith in things that do not exist?
You bet. You people are dangerous.
Comment by unbelievable
Time for a doctor visit for u girlfriend!
November 30th, 2006 at 7:30 pmMenopause
PMS Pretty Mean Streak
Pap smear etc.
unbelievable and ItsJustKarma, you guys are hilarious. In reverse order: unbelievable, again with the straw man attack, saying I am of the sort who might go on about a “war on Christmas,” just because I am a Christian.
And ItsJustKarma: you offered no evidence for your claims. I denied them. How does that show you are “dead on right”?
Now, unbelievable, no, you were not attacking my “admission that [I] put the Bible before the Constitution.” First, you never even mentioned that. Second, you were attacking me before I said that. Third, why is this something worthy of attack? Everyone should put their personal beliefs ahead of the Constitution. It’s the highest law of the land, but it is not perfect.
You are against the war in Iraq? From the beginning?
Nope. I have always been in favor of it, from the beginning. But not for reasons that have anything to do with anyone sharing my religious beliefs, which was the context of the statement you are replying to.
Should I even bother to mention the Inquisition? Salem witch burnings? Etc?
Probably not, since they have nothing to do with me. Mentioning them would only serve to further your straw man attacks against some caricature that doesn’t represent me.
You have been debunked. You really should quit while you’re only this far behind
Huh? What thing have I said that has been “debunked”?
November 30th, 2006 at 7:40 pmal Crackers like Prager make 9/11 seem justifiable…
…these (Pragers and Rob Schencks) are YOUR familymembers…
…co-workers…
…neighbors…
..friends…
November 30th, 2006 at 7:41 pmunbelievable u are one uppity holier than thou person.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:44 pmU sound kinda miserable from what u post.
Not very attractive? Were u an ugly child?
Just so we’re all clear on this issue, the United States is, by law, NOT a christian nation. The law is the Treaty of Tripoly signed in the 1790’s. It was passed unanimously without dissent. The lawmakers passing it were many of the same men who signed the constitution. All treaties entered into by the U.S. government are treated as U.S. law. Therefore, federal law holds that we are NOT a christian nation.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:55 pmAs an orthodox religious jew, i find Prager’s ideas to be completely idiotic.
As was reported on the blog of the national jewish democratic council recently, it would seem that according to prager, using a jewish bible would be just as bad, as had recently been reported that Congresswoman debbie wasserman shultz needed a jewish bible for her ceremony and when she couldnt find one, borrowed a copy from congressman gary ackerman of new york.
Also, someone should tell prager that:
Sources:
November 30th, 2006 at 7:58 pmhttp://njdc.typepad.com/ njdcs_blog/ 2006/ 11/ religious_tests.html
http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=842
http://www.jewishsf.com/ content/ 2-0-/ module/ displaystory/ story_id/ 24751/ edition_id/ 485/ format/ html/ displaystory.html
#104 unbelievable:
Allowing a government to endorse something based on speculation, conjecture and emotions takes away the public’s ability to fight against other speculative, irrational and emotional endorsements.
Well, first of all, no, it doesn’t. See the many lawsuits over posting of the Ten Commandments in public places. Your ability to fight is well-preserved. Second, an individual elected official taking an oath simply does not constitute government endorsement. It simply doesn’t. We’ve had elected officials mentioning God in public for centuries, and never has it been seen as an endorsement by the government, but only of that individual official.
Well, I am an Atheist and I’ll tell you what it is to me. Holier-than-thou religious nuts forcing your religion upon us and all other non-Christians. We want freedom FROM religion.
You’re just wrong. An individual elected official taking an oath that mentions religion does not force anything on you. It simply doesn’t. You have no “freedom” to prevent others from mentioning religion in their official government capacity.
Not if that nut thinks his personal god talks to him and tells him to start a war with Iraq.
That’s illogical conflation. You are talking about two different things. What Bush thinks about what God says to him has nothing to do with the reasonableness of an oath that mentions God. And that said, whether or not Bush is a nut, he has every right to believe God told him to finish (technically speaking, the war from 1991 had not ended … let’s base this discussion on facts, shall we?) the war with Iraq.
And that IS the reality of people who need to publicize their religions.
Huh? Everyone who “needs to publicize their religions” starts a war? JFK started Vietnam (or at least, our involvement in it), and he wasn’t big on publicizing his religious views. John Adams’ religious views were some of the most prominently known of the time, and he did his best to stay out of war with France. Lincoln was one of the most private Presidents in terms of his religious views, and he started the Civil War. Sorry, I am seeing no connection.
Jesus said that your religion should be kept private. I agree.
Well, sorta. He did not say to keep your religious views private (after all, he wanted his followers to go tell everyone about their belief!), but to keep your religious expressions (for example, prayer) private. And I agree. But so what? This does not inform us as to whether an oath should mention God or be taken on the Bible or some other religious text, since a. some people could interpret that passage differently in this context, and b. not all religions have such an exhortation of privacy.
Dangerous. Because it shifts responsibility from the individual to speculative supernatural forces that are neither predictable nor reasonable.
We have a long history (predating the U.S.) of making oaths personal to the individual. You can disagree with that, but I won’t spend time defending it because it’s beside my point, which is that within this longstanding tradition (which included agnostics and atheists), an oath to Allah or God is perfectly reasonable.
If fear is how religion gets people to behave, then it doesn’t say a lot about those people.
You are misinterpreting it. It’s not about fear. It’s not about “if I lie or violate the Constitution, God will strike me down.” Many people think of it that way (and phrases like “So help me God” contribute to the misperception), but in truth, it is (again, as the Federal Rules of Evidence say) about awakening the person’s conscience and impress their mind with their duty. It’s not about fear, but about focus.
Unholding the Constitution requires seperation of church and state. If he wants to say a prayer — say it silently to himself. It’s no place to prosletyze.
Again, you are misinterpreting. First, the Constitution does not say anything about separation of church and state. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which literally, means Congress could not make a law saying Ellison could NOT say “Allahu Akbar!” at the end of his oath. There’s nothing in the Constitution even implying Ellison should not say that.
Second, just because it is in public does not mean it is proselytization. Some people may look upon it as an opportunity to proselytize, but most do not see it as such. I fully agree that the halls of the Capitol are not the place for proselytization, but not all mentions of personal religious beliefs constitute proselytization.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:01 pm[…] UPDATE: Now that we are on the subject of conservative lies, here’s another one. The great thing about this lie is it basically sums up everything you need to know about the right wing political machine- they are intolerant, ill-informed, propaganda-loving and most importantly, the Constitution-hating. The Constitution is simply a word. Oh, and despite their claim of being God’s Own Party, their hostility to religious freedom seeps out in every speech, soundbite and sermon. All this while they blast the “secular left”. […]
November 30th, 2006 at 8:05 pmpudge
For what it’s worth, I probably have many disagreements with you politically, but I am in total agreement with your posts about oath-taking as a personal issue. I understand that you are not advocating any state-sponsored religious practice, but allowing a person to invoke their God as witness to their oath, thereby strengthening the seriousness of it to that person. You have taken a very thoughtful, measured, and tolerant position and I think others are misunderstanding/misinterpreting you in this.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:08 pman oath to Allah or God is perfectly reasonable.
Not in a government ceremony. You dont serve either God or Allah there…you serve the people. Thats what you are there. If you want to believe in magic bearded guys who promised to come back from the death, we will just wait here sit and thats your personal choice.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:14 pmThats why you are there. Sorry.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:22 pmJuan
It’s a government ceremony and the government should not force, endorse, or promote any mention of a god in the ceremony. But what pudge is advocating is an oath not to “serve god” but rather a personal oath or promise of the office holder to uphold the duties of that office that allows “so help me God” or its equivalent as an additional binding that person is putting on him or herself to do just that. BTW, I am as strong an advocate of the separation of church and state as you will find anywhere.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:24 pmNope. I have always been in favor of it (the war), from the beginning. But not for reasons that have anything to do with anyone sharing my religious beliefs, which was the context of the statement you are replying to.
Isnt it surprising that most of people who called himself Christians are the ones that support the bombing of iraqi children?
November 30th, 2006 at 8:25 pmBut what pudge is advocating is an oath not to “serve god†but rather a personal oath or promise of the office holder to uphold the duties of that office that allows “so help me God†or its equivalent as an additional binding that person is putting on him or herself to do just that.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) —
If thats true, I agree. You can ask for divine or terrestrial help, whatever you want. What cant be done is to use a religious artifact as a tool in a non-religious government´s ceremony, no matter what the guy believes in. You dont go to a job interview with your pocket Bible or a big cross in order to demonstrate yourself or anyone how much you want help for that event.
BTW, I am as strong an advocate of the separation of church and state as you will find anywhere.
We all know that. :)
November 30th, 2006 at 8:33 pmHmmmm ….. I’d always sorta thought it was freedom FROM religion (as in, ” … no state religion, etc. … “.
It’s time Shrub and his neocronies and religio nuts headed back into the backwoods, where they belong. They actually put on the most revolting displays of false patriotism — and 90% or more of those weenies have never even worn their country’s uniform — even Shrub never did, for real.
Hey, how about a new word: “faketriot”
………… [7-year Nam era vet].
November 30th, 2006 at 8:41 pmJuan
I also think that progressives need to take on bigger separation of church and state issues than an oath given by an individual, which has no legally binding religious sentiment at all. I’m more concerned about there being laws, such as the denial of marriage rights to homosexuals, entirely on the basis of a religious belief. Go back and read pudge’s comments and imagine I, as a progressive, wrote it. He doesn’t sound that politically conservative on this issue, does he?
November 30th, 2006 at 8:42 pmPap smear etc.
Comment by Flaco — November 30, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
You are seriously demented.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:46 pmGo back and read pudge’s comments and imagine I, as a progressive, wrote it. He doesn’t sound that politically conservative on this issue, does he?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) —
I know this is a sensitive topic for you, it can be seen in your poster name. But he supports this war. So I guess he can be called THAT politically conservative…probably not on this issue, but in the issue that matters he not only is conservative, he is souless.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:46 pmunbelievable and ItsJustKarma, you guys are hilarious.
So you laugh at things that you don’t understand? I have a couple of high school students who do that. Helps them feel better about feeling foolish. Coping mechanism.
In reverse order: unbelievable, again with the straw man attack, saying I am of the sort who might go on about a “war on Christmas,†just because I am a Christian.
Not a strawman because you’ve demostrated yourself to be someone who claims to be a victim when you are in the majority that oppressed others. That is the funny part.
Now, unbelievable, no, you were not attacking my “admission that [I] put the Bible before the Constitution.â€
So you know what I am doing better than I do? No way. You’re not psychic, Miss Cleo. Neither are you that astute.
First, you never even mentioned that. Second, you were attacking me before I said that. Third, why is this something worthy of attack? Everyone should put their personal beliefs ahead of the Constitution. It’s the highest law of the land, but it is not perfect.
NO, people should NOT put their personal beliefs ahead of the Constitution.
How you get that this isn’t endorsing what we’ve said about your is proof of your inability to either see objectively or reason things. You think your opinion is a fact. LOL.
Nope. I have always been in favor of it, from the beginning. But not for reasons that have anything to do with anyone sharing my religious beliefs, which was the context of the statement you are replying to.
Being in favor of it proves, yet again, that you are a sheep. And even if you refuse to accept it - it has everything to do with your hypocritical religious beliefs and blind faith in a government that is as clueless as a doorknob…
Probably not, since they have nothing to do with me. Mentioning them would only serve to further your straw man attacks against some caricature that doesn’t represent me.
I see you don’t understand what a strawman argument is. I do. I have made no strawmen - just logical and astute observations.
Actually, they have something to do with you, since you endorse a religion that perpetrated them. Guilt by association.
Huh? What thing have I said that has been “debunked�
Comment by pudge — November 30, 2006 @ 7:40 pm
Yes, we noticed that you aren’t very bright.
Everything you’ve said has been debunked. More than once. You either can’t or won’t see it. And that just adds to the proof of your dangerous ignorance.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:56 pmLord, even the libertarian Neal Boortz pointed out that it’s the Congressman’s right to swear on whichever book has meaning to HIM. For Chrissake people!!
November 30th, 2006 at 9:12 pmWell, first of all, no, it doesn’t. See the many lawsuits over posting of the Ten Commandments in public places.
The fact that people have to take it to court is proof that your side neither respects nor accepts it.
So, yes, it does.
Your ability to fight is well-preserved.
Only because of November 7th. Your boy king was in teh process of undoing that.
Second, an individual elected official taking an oath simply does not constitute government endorsement. It simply doesn’t.
Hello? What part of taking an oath to uphold the Constitution are you missing? That is the point in taking an oath.
As a public school teacher I had to sign two oaths - both were about upholding the Constitutions of the US and my state. That’s the point of them.
We’ve had elected officials mentioning God in public for centuries, and never has it been seen as an endorsement by the government, but only of that individual official.
Of course it is. It’s why politicians have to claim a faith. Because hypocritical Christians would never vote for anyone who didn’t. And since they are the majority - that demonstrates that religion is polluting our system.
You’re just wrong.
Because you said so? LOL. You’re amusing. You want all the freedom in teh world, but are willing to give none in return.
I am not wrong. Not even close. It’s because I see the reality that exists and not the one some heat-stroked desert dwellers claim exists in your Bible.
An individual elected official taking an oath that mentions religion does not force anything on you. It simply doesn’t. You have no “freedom†to prevent others from mentioning religion in their official government capacity.
Again, you want to restrict those of us who disagree with you. You can’t keep your religion private as Jesus told you to. You must prostletyze - and that DOES impact our society - because it tells people that you must be a Christian to be an elected official.
That’s illogical conflation.
Not even remotely. You use a lot of words you do not understand.
You are talking about two different things. What Bush thinks about what God says to him has nothing to do with the reasonableness of an oath that mentions God.
Of course it does. It shows that he thinks in this vein.
And that said, whether or not Bush is a nut, he has every right to believe God told him to finish (technically speaking, the war from 1991 had not ended … let’s base this discussion on facts, shall we?) the war with Iraq.
Oh, I get it now - you’re a nut too who hears voices… Explains a lot - including your double standards and rationalization.
Huh? Everyone who “needs to publicize their religions†starts a war?
You may not understand what a strawman is, but you sure are adept at building them. Not what I said.
JFK started Vietnam (or at least, our involvement in it), and he wasn’t big on publicizing his religious views.
JFK did NOT start Vietnam. It was a “conflict” that the French started, and Truman and Einsenhower got us into.
1 November 1955 — Eisenhower deploys the Military Assistance Advisory Group to train the South Vietnamese Army. This marks the official beginning of American involvement in the war as recognized by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
And he was big about publicizing the fact that he was a Catholic. He said it a lot - even though he was one who believed it should not impact his role as a defender of the Constitution..
John Adams’ religious views were some of the most prominently known of the time, and he did his best to stay out of war with France.
Your knowledge of history is atrocious.
Lincoln was one of the most private Presidents in terms of his religious views, and he started the Civil War. Sorry, I am seeing no connection.
Lincoln started the Civil War? He was against it. It was the South that wanted to cede from the Union. Lincoln was representative of the North who didn’t want that.
Your lack of historical knowledge is explaining a lot about the rest of your lack of knowledge.
You see no connection? That’s because you have no connection with reality on any level.
Well, sorta. He did not say to keep your religious views private (after all, he wanted his followers to go tell everyone about their belief!), but to keep your religious expressions (for example, prayer) private. And I agree. But so what?
So what? That’s exactly what these people are NOT doing - that’s so what. They are expressing their religious beliefs in public!
This does not inform us as to whether an oath should mention God or be taken on the Bible or some other religious text, since a. some people could interpret that passage differently in this context, and b. not all religions have such an exhortation of privacy.
You really don’t get it. I’d have better luck explaining it to either of my cats. Their English comprehension is far better than yours…
an oath to Allah or God is perfectly reasonable.
No it isn’t. Say it to yourself.
You are misinterpreting it. It’s not about fear. It’s not about “if I lie or violate the Constitution, God will strike me down.â€
Don’t be ridiculous. That’s all it’s about - hence the Commandments and the entire Old Testament, as well as Revelations. All that crap is fear mongering to make people obedient.
Have you ever read the Bible?
but in truth, it is (again, as the Federal Rules of Evidence say) about awakening the person’s conscience and impress their mind with their duty. It’s not about fear, but about focus.
Becaue you are the ultimate Christian who knows everything? Should we just call you Jesus? Or would you prefer Mr. Christ?
Again, you are misinterpreting. First, the Constitution does not say anything about separation of church and state.
No I am not. And yes, it does. What do you think “no law respecting an establishment of religion” means?
Which literally, means Congress could not make a law saying Ellison could NOT say “Allahu Akbar!†at the end of his oath. There’s nothing in the Constitution even implying Ellison should not say that.
That’s not all it says. It says that religion and government should not mix. How are you missing that - it’s very obvious and rather clear.
Second, just because it is in public does not mean it is proselytization.
Comment by pudge — November 30, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
Yes it does - when it is a government platform that’s exactly what it does. You just said so in the part about Jesus wanting you to convert people.
Sheesh…
November 30th, 2006 at 9:22 pmYou have taken a very thoughtful, measured, and tolerant position and I think others are misunderstanding/misinterpreting you in this.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — November 30, 2006 @ 8:08 pm
He thinks JFK started Vietnam… He doesn’t have much credibility.
I do not misunderstand whta he is saying. I disagree with him. I think people should keep their religious beliefs out of government affairs. If you wanna say something - do it at another time. My representatives are supposed tobe representing me, and Atheists. how are they doing that by swaering to a god instead of the Constitution?
November 30th, 2006 at 9:27 pmIsnt it surprising that most of people who called himself Christians are the ones that support the bombing of iraqi children?
Comment by Juan C — November 30, 2006 @ 8:25 pm
And then calls us the hypocrites…
It would be funny were it not so frightening…
November 30th, 2006 at 9:29 pm[…] * I talked about this issue, but found out after the fact that it’s kinda based on nonsense. Posted by Jake on November 30, 2006 5:38 pm […]
November 30th, 2006 at 9:30 pmThe swearing, or affirmation, is merely an oath. There is no law or particular rule that requires placing a hand on any text. Go to this picture of kennedy being sworn in:http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/jfkpix/oaththp.jpg
If anyone had a reason to put a hand on a bible, it would have been kennedy — as nixon is within an arm’s length of the podium.
and the entire kennedy administration’s swearing in? See it here: http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/jfkpix/cabinetthp.jpg
Nixon has a book open, but his hand is not upon it.
How about governor Reagan: http://businessimagegroup.com/ presidentialimages.com/ images/ Reagan/ reagan-swearing-inGov_a11_400.jpg
November 30th, 2006 at 9:31 pmTell this moron what you think . His email address is dennisprager@dennisprager.com.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:14 pmBoy, it just doesn’t get any better than this.
By comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf, this
pathetic creature is driving millions of Muslim
Americans, straight into the hands of the
already expanding Democratic/Progressive
political party. We could not purchase such
positive publicity for millions of dollars, than
this Hasbeen gives us with his selfserving,
lies and misrepresentations of the truth.
One would think, that these crazed carpet chewing
November 30th, 2006 at 10:43 pmpaperhangers, would think about what they are
doing. Its clear they believe their own rhetoric
regarding the last election. The majority of the
American people, and this includes true
Conservatives,are feed up with these reactionary
guttersnips, and their perversion of the truth.
But thats okay Fruitcakes, keep screaming
about the Koran and Gay marriage. You have already
lost power, and are stepping into your own grave.
Keep on this insane course, and you will make
2008 a pure comedy theatre regarding your
chances of gaining sets. The majority of the American
people see right thru the likes of Flush, Prager, Mann
Coulter, etc etc. And they are clearly no longer
amused. This kind of childish pandering to the Far
Rightwing Rabble is alienating millions of voters
away from the Far Right. Right into the arms of
the nonRabid center. Its your funeral fruitcake.
[…] Okay, folks, you want a quick and easy answer for why the “terrorists” hate us as much as they do? Here’s your answer: when a right-wing radio host makes up a phony story about our first Muslim Congressman demanding to be sworn in with his hand on the Koran. […]
November 30th, 2006 at 11:04 pmIt would be funny were it not so frightening…
— unbelievable
Awsome takedown on pudge =)
Tore every one of his “points”to shreds.
/cheer
November 30th, 2006 at 11:39 pmPrager also claimed Ellison tore the head off a puppy on the Capitol steps.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:59 amPrager also reported that Ellison tore the head off a puppy on the Capitol steps.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:01 amI am the author of the piece being vilified here by people who either did not read my article or rely on the lie spread by Think Progress and others that I compared the Koran to Mein Kampf.
In the second paragraph of my column I wrote that my piece had nothing to do with any antagonism to the Koran: I wrote that Ellison should not take the oath of office on a Koran “not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.â€
My only reference to Mein Kampf was in a question about drawing lines, and in no way “compared†the Koran to Mein Kampf. This is what I wrote:
“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?â€
It is obvious that I am in fact giving an example of a racist legislator to pose a challenge and in no way comparing Ellison or Muslims to Nazis. If that is not clear, I go on to give three other examples aside from Mein Kampf:
“…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.â€
Why do Think Progress and others only mention Mein Kampf, and not the New York Times, or Voltaire, or the Book of Mormon, or Dianetics? Because then they could not sustain their ad hominem lie that I compared the Koran to Mein Kampf.
My writings and comments are often lied about on leftist blogs, so I am, unfortunately, not surprised at this latest one. But it is sad nevertheless.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:02 amhey, is KoranKrusher really Evan Sayet? that’s quite the copy/paste job there buddy!
December 1st, 2006 at 3:22 am[…] La blogosfera izquierdista de por allà ya ha puesto las cosas en sus sitio. En Think Progress nos lo explican con claridad: el juramento de entrada en la Cámara de Representantes no incluye un libro religioso; tan sólo consiste en que los miembros alcen la mano y prestar juramento de defender la Constitución. […]
December 1st, 2006 at 3:38 amBackpedal faster, Dennis. It’s hilarious to watch.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:42 amHe is just another creep in the long list of creeps who broadcast daily to the dittoheads. Neither he nor they knows anything about anything. To compare the Quran to Mein Kamp is such a huge insult to all the Muslims of the world. Of course, he does not care about them because they are all infidels to him. Where he got his information is probably from the same source as his fellow creep, Rush Limbaugh, who sits isolated from society because nobody can stand to be with him, and invents facts which don’t hold water. Incidentally, Rush said he was tired of carrying water for the Republicans who he thought had not fought hard enough during the elections. That college dropout, pill-popping, lard ass has a whole section of our public in thrall, not because he is a thinker but because they aren’t.
December 1st, 2