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:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
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, 2006 at 6:24 amThe more psychotic the voter, the more likely they are to vote for Bush, study
http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/30-11-2006/85722-Bush-0
Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: the more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:23 amThe study began in part as an advocacy project “designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them” to vote, while assessing “knowledge of current issues, government and politics.” The Bush trend emerged in the course of the study, according to Lohse, who describes himself as a “Reagan revolution fanatic” who nonetheless finds Bush “beyond the pale.”
Keep pandering to your Pederast Evangelical base Reichwingers.
Its really all you have left. Your NeoNazi hatred of America, hatred
of our Freedoms, and hatred of the Rule of Law, is clear to the
majority of American people. One would think the last election
would open your eyes to your folly, but old habits die hard. You
continue the same old tired “Liberals Hate America” rhetoric ad
nauseam. Real Conservatives detest the reactionary element that
has grown on the Republican party like a cancer.
Normal people welcome your hatred, and wear it as a badge of honor.
You have destroyed the GOP center. Plain and simple.
And the number of American dead in Iraq is 2800, not the 2300
December 1st, 2006 at 7:52 amstated above. As usual, the truth is something made up as you
need it. Thanks for all the independent votes, and keep that
rabid hate coming.
Dear I hate Dumb-o-crats
December 1st, 2006 at 7:59 amNice cut and paste from an earlier article! and you can’t even post under a same name.
COWARD!
[...] I had a good laugh reading this misinformed email this morning. The basis of this action alert is just wrong, the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book. Think Progress further debunks the story. [...]
December 1st, 2006 at 8:52 am[...] I focused yesterday on Prager’s problem with identifying the Bible as the nation’s founding historical document. But today it turns out there’s a much more basic problem with Prager’s outrage: it isn’t factual. It turns out that members of Congress don’t swear their oaths of office on Bibles. Related Posts:–God, Facts, Logic and Reason–Can Cartoons Love You?–Columbus, Ohio At Bottom of Sustainability Rankings–Impolite. Right?–Photos Show Ram Bomjon Moved [E-Mail This Post] [link] [...]
December 1st, 2006 at 8:54 amI never used to feel hatred for people such as Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, or other pop-culture notables who, for example, sing the praises of Central American dictators while calling President Bush the greatest terrorist on earth. I do now.
And though these figures might be dismissed as inconsequential, their views seem mild compared with those of some of our university professors charged with the “higher†education of our youth.
Thus have I come to hate Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who called the Sept. 11 victims of the World Trade Center “little Eichmannsâ€; Nicholas De Genova, the Columbia professor who loudly wished “a million Mogadishus†on American troops in Iraq; and Kevin Barrett, the University of Wisconsin professor who teaches his students that President Bush was the actual mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
I used to laugh these people off. Now I detest them as among the most loathsome people America has ever vomited up.
I have also grown to hate certain people of genuine accomplishment like Ted Turner, who, by his own contention, cannot make up his mind which side of the terror war he is on; I hate the executives at CNN, Turner’s intellectual progeny, who recently carried water for our enemies by broadcasting their propaganda film portraying their attempts to kill American soldiers in Iraq.
I now hate Howard Dean, the elected leader of the Democrats, who, by repeatedly stating his conviction that we won’t win in Iraq, bets his party’s future on our nation’s defeat.
I hate the Democrats who, in support of this strategy, spout lie after lie: that the president knew in advance there were no WMD in Iraq; that he lied to Congress to gain its support for military action; that he pushed for the democratization of Iraq only after the failure to find WMD; that he was a unilateralist and that the coalition was a fraud; that he shunned diplomacy in favor of war.
These lies, contradicted by reports, commissions, speeches, and public records, are too preposterous to mock, but too pervasive to rebut, especially when ignored by abetting media.
Most detestable are the lies these rogues craft to turn grief into votes by convincing the families of our war dead that their loved ones died in vain. First, knowing what every intelligence agency was sure it knew by early 2003, it would have been criminal negligence had the president not enforced the U.N.’s resolutions and led the coalition into Iraq. Firemen sometimes die in burning buildings looking for victims who are not there. Their deaths are not in vain, either.
Second, no soldier dies in vain who goes to war by virtue of the Constitution he swears to defend. This willingness is called “duty,†and it is a price of admission into the highest calling of any free nation–the profession of arms. We have suffered more than 2,300 combat deaths in Iraq so far. Not one was in vain. Not one.
These are the people I now hate–these people who seek to control our national security. The best of them are misinformed. The rest of them are liars.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:32 amI never used to feel hatred for people such as Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, or other pop-culture notables who, for example, sing the praises of Central American dictators while calling President Bush the greatest terrorist on earth. I do now.
And though these figures might be dismissed as inconsequential, their views seem mild compared with those of some of our university professors charged with the “higher†education of our youth.
Thus have I come to hate Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who called the Sept. 11 victims of the World Trade Center “little Eichmannsâ€; Nicholas De Genova, the Columbia professor who loudly wished “a million Mogadishus†on American troops in Iraq; and Kevin Barrett, the University of Wisconsin professor who teaches his students that President Bush was the actual mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
I used to laugh these people off. Now I detest them as among the most loathsome people America has ever vomited up.
I have also grown to hate certain people of genuine accomplishment like Ted Turner, who, by his own contention, cannot make up his mind which side of the terror war he is on; I hate the executives at CNN, Turner’s intellectual progeny, who recently carried water for our enemies by broadcasting their propaganda film portraying their attempts to kill American soldiers in Iraq.
I now hate Howard Dean, the elected leader of the Democrats, who, by repeatedly stating his conviction that we won’t win in Iraq, bets his party’s future on our nation’s defeat.
I hate the Democrats who, in support of this strategy, spout lie after lie: that the president knew in advance there were no WMD in Iraq; that he lied to Congress to gain its support for military action; that he pushed for the democratization of Iraq only after the failure to find WMD; that he was a unilateralist and that the coalition was a fraud; that he shunned diplomacy in favor of war.
These lies, contradicted by reports, commissions, speeches, and public records, are too preposterous to mock, but too pervasive to rebut, especially when ignored by abetting media.
Most detestable are the lies these rogues craft to turn grief into votes by convincing the families of our war dead that their loved ones died in vain. First, knowing what every intelligence agency was sure it knew by early 2003, it would have been criminal negligence had the president not enforced the U.N.’s resolutions and led the coalition into Iraq. Firemen sometimes die in burning buildings looking for victims who are not there. Their deaths are not in vain, either.
Second, no soldier dies in vain who goes to war by virtue of the Constitution he swears to defend. This willingness is called “duty,†and it is a price of admission into the highest calling of any free nation–the profession of arms. We have suffered more than 2,300 combat deaths in Iraq so far. Not one was in vain. Not one.
These are the people I now hate–these people who seek to control our national security. The best of them are misinformed. The rest of them are liars.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:34 amLet`see,
The cast and crew from the wizard of oz is all here in this party.
No heart-check
No brians-check
No courage-and check…………see simple math.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:38 amWell, also…
He can sue.
There was a case settled recently where a columnist fabricated something in a column, about a judge, and it was decided the judge could sue the columnist and the paper.
So, our new representative should get on it. Get lawyered up. Set an example with this guy and show them how it’s done in the US. You can’t just print lies and then go whoops.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:38 amPrager is Satanic.
‘Nuff said.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:06 am#122 Juan C:
You think I am soulless because I support the war? You don’t even know the reasons WHY I support the war, yet you presume I am soulless. Again: so much for liberal “tolerance.”
December 1st, 2006 at 11:57 am#123 unbelievable:
Sigh. I won’t even bother to address your many ad hominem attacks, continued strawmen assaults, and other logical fallacies. I will merely address your actual substantive arguments.
Oops. I guess there are none.
Well, let’s try #125. Ah, there’s something.
The fact that people have to take it to court is proof that your side neither respects nor accepts it.
So? You said you didn’t have the right to fight for it. You obviously do. Stop moving the goalposts, that’s dishonest.
Only because of November 7th. Your boy king was in teh process of undoing that.
False. The Congress was working on something in this regard — Bush has no authority in this matter — but it was unlikely to ever pass.
That is the point in taking an oath.
The point of taking an oath is that the government endorses the form of your oath-taking? Um … no. Sorry.
Again, you want to restrict those of us who disagree with you.
Simply false. You cannot name one example of where I want to restrict anyone’s freedom.
You must prostletyze — and that DOES impact our society — because it tells people that you must be a Christian to be an elected official.
Why do you say “you” when addressing me, when I have made clear many times now that I would not swear an oath at all, but merely make an affirmation? And why do you say I would tell anyone that you have to be a Christian to be an elected official, when I have said many times I support Ellison swearing an oath on the Koran to Allah?
Again, you’re just making things up about me.
Oh, I get it now — you’re a nut too who hears voices
Again, you’re just making things up about me.
You may not understand what a strawman is, but you sure are adept at building them. Not what I said.
Actually, it is. You said:
You can clarify if you meant something different from what you said, but you did say it.
JFK did NOT start Vietnam. It was a “conflict” that the French started, and Truman and Einsenhower got us into.
I didn’t say he started it, I said he started our involvement in it. Neither Truman or Eisenhower got us into fighting in Vietnam.
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.
The MAAG was a group of advisers, not fighting forces. The first actual U.S. fighting forces were sent under JFK, hundreds of special forces who would train Vietnamese fighters and return fire if fired upon.
And [JFK] was big about publicizing the fact that he was a Catholic.
Only in the sense of promoting the notion that he would not govern as a Catholic. His Catholicism was already well-known, and he spent a ton of energy downplaying the effect his religion would have on him as President.
Your knowledge of history is atrocious.
Howso? Do you deny John Adams was a prominent Christian? He quite clearly was; it was the source of many of his views, including his stance against slavery. Or do you deny he kept us out of a war with France? The so-called Quasi War (or Undeclared War) with France was one of the biggest issues of the 1800 Presidential election. The Federalists (of which Adams was one) generally favored England in its war with France, but the Democratic-Republicans (led by Jefferson) favored ties to France. Adams walked a fine line, but generally favored isolationism and sent his son (the future President) to France, secretly, to negotiate a treaty, because France was attacking our ships in the Atlantic. Unfortunately for Adams’ reelection bid, news of the treaty did not reach the U.S. until after the election.
Lincoln started the Civil War?
Yes, he did.
He was against it.
Yes, he was. But he saw secession as a greater evil than war.
It was the South that wanted to cede from the Union. Lincoln was representative of the North who didn’t want that.
Right. The South seceded, and Lincoln responded militarily to force them back into the Union. Technically, the South attacked first, but only because of a massive Union buildup of forces that was clearly intended to force the Confederacy back into the Union. Even if you want to say the South was wholly responsible for Fort Sumter, it was Lincoln who, after retaking the Fort, blockaded all the Southern ports, which was clearly an act of war.
What do you think “no law respecting an establishment of religion” means?
That it is unconstitutional for Congress to make a law respecting an establishment of religion, obviously. And an individual elected official mentioning God in his oath, of his own accord, in case you were unclear, is not a law.
That’s not all it says. It says that religion and government should not mix.
Have you ever read the Constitution?
December 1st, 2006 at 11:57 amI appreciate Think Progress for checking the factual content of the oath-taking process for congresspersons. Please trust that truth-telling is more powerful than the advancement of any other agenda. There is not need to highlight Mr. Prager’s (willful or lazy) ignorance of the facts as he is only one of many who have advanced this controversy. His one (weak) defense is that his job is to comment on the news and reported actions/statements of public servants, and not research the veracity of mainstream journalists.
In my opinion, our great weakness is not in the advancing of opinions and arguments but in our unwillingness to seek, communicate and submit to the truth.
It is my commitment to seek and live the truth. On this journey I learn much from others and become very distracted when I am inclined to belittle, insult, ignore, or be smarter than others.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:39 pmAgain: so much for liberal “tolerance.â€
Comment by pudge
What about some tolerance towards iraqi children, eh? You support the war, period. I dont care if you support it because God says its a good thing or political or personal insecurity. You agree with what is happening in Iraq and that means that civilians and your soldiers are being killed. Do I have to be tolerant with intolerants? No.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:40 pm[...] Think Progress » Right-Wing Radio Host Fabricates Controversy To Attack First Muslim Congressman [...]
December 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pm#156 Juan C:
You support the war, period. I dont care if you support it because God says its a good thing or political or personal insecurity.
None of the above.
You agree with what is happening in Iraq and that means that civilians and your soldiers are being killed.
So that fewer will die in the long run, yes. If I am wrong in this (and of course, we can never know now, since we have invaded, preventing what would have happened had we not done so), it is not because my motives are poor, but because my methodology is.
Your implication that you care more about the children is simply false and baseless.
Do I have to be tolerant with intolerants? No.
Please look up “intolerant.” It does not mean “someone who disagrees with me,” as you imply.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:50 pmWhoever wrote this article is LIAR! Prager never compared Ellison swearing on the Koran to swearing on Mein Kampf. All you liberals know is passion and anger and aren’t able to debate or discuss an issue or even bother to know the truth. You have this pre-existing dogma of a certain set of labels, i.e. islamophobe, homophobe, racist…once you label someone that, the debate with the left is over. That is why lefties are disgusting people.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:13 pmHe didn’t compare the Koran to Mein Kampf.
Where did he compare it to Mein Kampf, can you quote him?
Where, which sentence did he say? I want a quote now.
Brent Heigold.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:14 pm“Think” and “Progress” have no business in the name of this blog. How do you sleep at night knowing how dishonest you are to put lies on the internet? Have you no integrity? If you were the least bit intelligent you wouldn’t need to lie to get a rise out of your audience. The only thing you got right here is that it was a column by Dennis Prager.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:15 pmI suggest a reading comprehension class for Nico. NOWHERE is a comparison made to Mein Kampf in Prager’s article. I’m sure your collective ‘minds’ are made up, I won’t waste anymore time confusing you with the facts.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:19 pmThe author falsely accuses Mr Prager. He never compared the Koran with any document by Hitler.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:19 pm[...] Originally Posted by Dakar2 You could claim he might be doing this for shock value — I don’t know anything about this guy really — but what about it would be all that shocking? Shock value? Why in the world we he take his oath on the Bible rather than the Koran? [edit] According to this, the whole story is bunk anyway. __________________ "Judge whether hit Saddam Hussein at same time, not only Usama Bin Laden." Handwritten notes, Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 11, 2:40 pm. [...]
December 1st, 2006 at 2:35 pmLiars, damned liars. If you view Prager’s article, Prager never ever compared the Koran with Mein Kampf. He was making a slippery slope argument. If one is allowed to choose a text, one would be able to choose any text. Now, with that under our belt. Prager clarified himself today. When he said, “should not be allowed,” he meant the public should pressure him to keep the tradition, such as Prager understood it. It would have been a respectful gesture on Ellison’s part, but the Bible should not be forced upon him. Had TP not been disqualified for lying, it may have made a good point as to the existance of such a tradition in the first place, but then that would have begged the question, “Why did Ellison bring it up at all?” Perhaps he wanted to make his own kind of statement.
Asymmetric
December 1st, 2006 at 2:40 pmDennis did not compair anything to “Mein Kampf.”
Facts are important if you are trying to make a point. Better luck next time folks!
jason
December 1st, 2006 at 2:42 pmDoes anyone have a reference to Keith Ellison’s statement that he will swear on Koran? Google News didn’t find me anything about Ellison’s statement but a bunch of other opinion pieces claiming this to be a fact, without citing any reference.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:27 pmIf it’s a mistake, it’s Ellison’s mistake, not Prager’s. Ellison was the one who said he wanted to use the Koran:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-01-muslim-lawmaker_x.htm
There is often a photo-op after the official swearing-in where the officeholder poses with a Bible. Ellison means to use the Koran in that photo, that’s what it’s all about. So it’s not really a mistake at all, this would really be the first time that a House member posed in his swearing-in photo with a Koran, an interesting sign of the increasing influence and power of Islam in the world.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:32 pmTwo friends of mine worked for Prager at different times: one during a prior radio show and one during a brief stint in TV.
Neither would be even slightly surprised that he hasn’t changed a bit. Maybe the most amoral ‘moralist’ on the airwaves.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:38 pmWhose oath is more credible?
http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2006/12/whose-oath-is-credible.html
A sincere Muslim or a phone “Christian”?
December 1st, 2006 at 4:20 pm[...] Here are few other blog post with this issue: Think Progress Bookmark to: [...]
December 1st, 2006 at 5:01 pm[...] Right-wing talk show host Dennis Prager has raised a firestorm charging that Rep.-elect Kieth Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, must swear in using a Bible. He said that if Ellison swears in with a Quran, it would undermine “American civilization” and be akin to swearing in with a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” [...]
December 1st, 2006 at 5:41 pmSigh. I won’t even bother to address your many ad hominem attacks, continued strawmen assaults, and other logical fallacies. I will merely address your actual substantive arguments.Oops. I guess there are none.
I only posted substantial (what you actually meant) arguments.
Substantive means having separate and independent existence.
http://www.dictionary.com
So? You said you didn’t have the right to fight for it. You obviously do. Stop moving the goalposts, that’s dishonest.
I didn’t move the goal posts because I didn’t say what you said I did. That is dishonesty.
Your ability to fight is well-preserved.
I repeat: Only because of November 7th. Your boy king was in the process of undoing that.
False. The Congress was working on something in this regard — Bush has no authority in this matter — but it was unlikely to ever pass.
In addition to an utter lack of knowledge of history – you also know nothing about how politics actually worked in teh 109th Congress who did Bush’s bidding.
The point of taking an oath is that the government endorses the form of your oath-taking? Um … no. Sorry.
Again, not what I said or implied. I said that the point in taking this particular oath is to uphold the Constitution – not peddle for Jeebus.
Simply false. You cannot name one example of where I want to restrict anyone’s freedom.
Sure I can.
Why do you say “you†when addressing me, when I have made clear many times now that I would not swear an oath at all, but merely make an affirmation? And why do you say I would tell anyone that you have to be a Christian to be an elected official, when I have said many times I support Ellison swearing an oath on the Koran to Allah?
Dude, wear your helmet when you beat your head against the wall… Seriously, your reading comprehension is non-existent.
Again, you’re just making things up about me.
Again, you’re just making things up about me.
No, I’m pointing out your hypocrisy.
You can clarify if you meant something different from what you said, but you did say it.
Only a fruitcake would say something like this. It’s not an ad hominem, by the way – just a very astute observation. Not all facts are pleasant…
I didn’t say he started it, I said he started our involvement in it. Neither Truman or Eisenhower got us into fighting in Vietnam.
No he didn’t. He came after Truman and Eisenhower, therefore the future cannot trump the past.
The MAAG was a group of advisers, not fighting forces. The first actual U.S. fighting forces were sent under JFK, hundreds of special forces who would train Vietnamese fighters and return fire if fired upon.
You are beyond delusional. You have no understanding of cause and effect – and are aperfect example of how and why the public school system is failing America.
I repeat: Your knowledge of history is atrocious.
Howso? Do you deny John Adams was a prominent Christian?
Yes.
“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”
– John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
A Christian wouldn’t reference his own religion this way
“The frightful engines of ecclesiastical councils, of diabolical malice, and Calvinistical good-nature never failed to terrify me exceedingly whenever I thought of preaching.”
– John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, October 18, 1756, explaining why he rejected the ministry
“Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires.”
– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814, from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, from George Seldes, The Great Quotations, also from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
Need more? I have them…
It was the South that wanted to cede from the Union. Lincoln was representative of the North who didn’t want that.
Right. But he didn’t start the war. The South did (I live here, I know).
Technically, the South attacked first, but only because of a massive Union buildup of forces that was clearly intended to force the Confederacy back into the Union.
You just agreed with me that the South started it. But you want to argue technicalities here, but not in Vietnam? So, it only is allowed in play if it works to your advantage?
I was on debate team in high school and was elected to the annual Student-Faculty Debate in college. We called your form of logic ‘fallacious’. Google it.
That it is unconstitutional for Congress to make a law respecting an establishment of religion, obviously. And an individual elected official mentioning God in his oath, of his own accord, in case you were unclear, is not a law.
Do you routinely compare apples to oranges and then pat yourself on the back for it?
You do not get our points, so you build strawmen – including the biggest strawman of all – accusing us of it… (aka projection).
Have you ever read the Constitution?
Comment by pudge — December 1, 2006 @ 11:57 am
Yes, and “the” Bible (there are 32 versions last I counted)… which you, by the way did not answer whether or not you have read.
December 1st, 2006 at 6:13 pm“The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity….
“Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.”
— The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831. One might expect a modern defender of the Evangelical to play with the meaning of “Christianity,” making it refer only to a specific brand of orthodoxy, first sentence quoted in John E Remsberg, “Six Historic Americans,” second sentence quoted in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15
December 1st, 2006 at 6:15 pmThe Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams
“As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] … it is declared … that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries….
“The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.”
— Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)
December 1st, 2006 at 6:16 pm[...] Turns out he’s an even bigger dumbass than I thought. And I’m a dumbass, too, for not catching his egregious error. See, Congressmen don’t swear their oaths on any book at all, holy or otherwise. [...]
December 1st, 2006 at 7:31 pmI’ve emailed and talked to many, many Muslims and asked them all what the law of Allah is and every one who has answered has sent me a confusing list of various, different, and sundry verses from the Koran and none of the lists were the same, but all lacked these three of the Ten Commandments:
You shall not kill.
You shall not commit adultery.
Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.
Since all members of congress are being sworn in as lawmakers, why shouldn’t they, whether Christian or Muslim or whatever, be required to swear in the name of their God that they will uphold the Law of God which includes “You shall not kill” and “You shall not commit adultery”?
Why would any God-loving and God-fearing man or woman wanting to be our nation’s lawmaker refuse such an oath? And why would any peace-loving American citizen oppose a requirement that our lawmakers take such an oath?
From my conversations with Muslims, it is evident to me that all Muslims as a whole are confused as to what is right and wrong and their list of what is right is very short or they have little idea of what is on their list of right and wrong except for the five pillars of Islam. And consider this: none of those five pillars of Islam have anything to do with relationships or interactions with others.
I know my comments are really going to upset some of those self-proclaimed “church and state separationists” (some of whom are really God and society separationists), but what good is any democracy when you have a majority of the people doing what is right in their own sight, doing what benefits themselves the most? It is then that democracy becomes no good at all because it is then that you have chaos and anarchy. That is what happens when you prohibit the divine standards from government and society that are higher than those of the flesh and human nature.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:54 pmObviously Mr.Praeger has hit a cord with all of you. Amazing, how many personal attacks have been posted. Usually this is based on the inability to debate your point.
The question is not so much about which book to take your oath on, Because its clear that there is no constitutional edict to use a Bible, but as a Muslim could Mr. Ellison truly make an oath to uphold Americas values and system?
As we all know America is looked upon by Muslims as Infidels and an impure culture.
So what’s his real agenda?
That is really what we should be asking. Especially those of you who voted for him.
Hope your decision doesn’t come back to bite you.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:35 pmPeace
I’ve never read so many whiny, name calling liberals in my life. I have never read such hate and filth in my life. You only prove that liberlism is a mental disorder. I believe that most of you would like to see America lose our fight against terrorism. You’re all in denial about a group of people who seek to behead and kill as many of us as possible. Please grow up and be rational for once, before it’s too late.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:57 pmPrager is foolish enough to go stirring up a hornet’s nest with his false remarks. All he needs to do is read the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3, as well as the First Amendment, and he’ll see that his whole argument falls apart at a touch. People who say you have to swear on a Bible or you can’t offer courtroom testimony or serve in Congress etc. have been watching way too much courtroom drama or reading too much fiction.
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:39 amSo, he does know that Hitler was a Christian, right? Hitler himself would have sworn on a bible. Is he completely ignorant?
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:40 amHas anyone noticed that Thinkprogress is lying about Prager comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf? He said that IF a person was elected that wanted to swear on Mein Kampf, should that be allowed. He also asked if a Scientologist should be allowed to swear on Dianetics. Both were examples about where this would end.
Hitler was not a Christian by a long shot. He was a sick killer, and to claim that one of the worst mass murderers of our times was a believer in Jesus is hateful and bigoted. I am saddened to find this kind of hatred here…
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:14 amThis blog’s post, and the comments attached, are testament that it is the left who lies and distorts what is said by others, and revels in bigotry, intolerance and hate. The accusations are fabricated; he never compared the Koran to Mein Kampf and never said that swearing on the Bible is required by law or Constitution. The vitriol presented by like-minded robots is shared without benefit of actually reading Mr. Praeger’s text. But his point certainly is true that if the elected, not the electors, are primary in deciding what book to use for an oath of office, there is no reason to prevent the use of Mein Kampf, which is what Mr. Praeger said.
I have no doubt that there is some point at which the ‘Preager-haters’ above would say “No, you can’t take the oath of office on that book.” It is at that point they discover they are bedfellows with Mr. Preager. What then? Thought is required when addressing this issue, a commodity in very short supply within “Think Progress” and its agreeing multitude.
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:47 pmGod,I hate organized religion.
Hello Washington,Can we get some representation of the people’s will anymore?
Prager has a ham arm from sitting in his craftmatic adjustable bed watching war coverage,only occasionally flipping over to
The God channel when he needs a new target.
Again,to reiterate a previous poster,”Taking an oath on ANY book is no guarentee of anything.Let the muslim fellow
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:02 pmtake the oath most important to him in order to serve his district.
[...] Now, first off, to correct a small fact that everyone on the right has gotten wrong to date, no one in the House is sworn in with any religious book at all. It’s not a part of the swearing in process, it’s not in the Constitution, it’s not in any rule or law or procedure anywhere. And it is most certainly not a Bible. There is NO REQUIREMENT WHATSOEVER THAT A BIBLE BE USED TO SWEAR IN MEMBERS OF THE US HOUSE. The only time a Bible, or any other religious book pops up, is when a prospective House member brings it with them – but it simply isn’t a part of the swearing in ceremony, period. [...]
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:32 pmfight fire with fire, grandma always used to say….
W
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:17 amLike minded robots?
do I hear the pot calling the kettle black or what?
Like minded robots LOL
Hahaaaa hee.. giggle. ROFL
“Like minded robots” from a christian, imagine that!
Hilarious.
W.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:19 amThis guy is quite stupidly suggesting that the United Satates of America is a Christian nation, when the reality should smack him right in the face. This plce is probably the most secular in the world in terms of volume. Although it is true that some basic principles of Christianity serve as a foundation for the free society in the United States, it is idiotic to come to the conclusion that America is a Christian nation, or that it truly strives to preserve Cristianity. And if such is the case then fix the constitution or fix yourselves so you stop being double standard hypocrites. Also it is disturbing to think that a country who’s constitution celebrates the freedom of or from religion, should be governed Christian-centered beauracreates.
December 3rd, 2006 at 6:03 amFirst, I am a born again christian who knows that no religions text is required to swear an oath. It is personal choice, as it should be. You can swear on nothing also. The Bible says “not to swear oaths using the name of God”. Also, Adolph Hitler was not a christian as he sent many Lutherans and Catholics to the concentration camps as well as Jews. He was trying to ressurect the old Germanic/Norse Pantheon. He was quite taken with the works of Wagner and based his beliefs on that.
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:34 pm[...] Meanwhile, it was revealed that Congresspeople do not swear their oaths on the Bible, merely raising their right hand at the swearing in ceremony, invalidating both Ellison and Praeger’s comments. [...]
December 4th, 2006 at 11:43 am“This guy is quite stupidly suggesting that the United Satates of America is a Christian nation, when the reality should smack him right in the face.”
He never said that.
He’s only stated, and accurately so, that this is a nation predominantly founded on Judeo-Christian values. That doesn’t mean that everyone or anyone has to become Christian in order to be American, however to be a truthful person, one has to acknowledge the significance the Bible has had in the formation of America.
December 4th, 2006 at 2:03 pm“There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist.â€
December 4th, 2006 at 2:06 pmYou can listen to Dennis Prager’s explanation and rationale at pragerradio.com. If you are open minded and feel strongly about this you can listen.
December 4th, 2006 at 7:38 pm[...] I’m enraged at host Prager. Yes, Dennis. To the truth he is rather a menace, Cause he gave Muslims grief When he lied about Keith, By inventing a Biblical oath dis.Technorati Tags: Dennis Prager, Keith Ellison, Media Humor, Koran, Bible, Muslim Congressman Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
December 5th, 2006 at 3:41 ams
December 5th, 2006 at 5:04 amWhere do you people come from? If your religous or conservative you don’t have the right or the ability to speak your mind?
December 5th, 2006 at 5:11 amEllison’s insistence that he be sworn in using the Koran, when no book is actually necessary is a slap in the face to all Americans. The fact is that this country was founded on Judeo-Chrsitian principles. A member of congress should promise to uphold those American values even if he or she is not Christian. Ellison’s desire to go out of his way to show that he does not agree with these values is INSULTING. Ellison does not need ti be Christian himself, he has a right to his personal belief. The point is, as a congressman he needs to uphold the Christain values that the founders built the country on. If you can’t do that (as he obviously can’t) then don’t run for Congress!!
December 5th, 2006 at 7:29 amAndrew,
Ignorance is a tool that your enemies use against you. You should not be so willing to fill their arsenal.
December 5th, 2006 at 2:11 pmI think it’s noteworthy that, not only have Prager’s critics here refused to acknowledge they misconstrued his statements (as has been pointed out and explained repeatedly by others’ posts), but they now seem to be ignoring his point-by-point rebuttal of their groundless charges. But then, just as Arthur Miller has shown us, when did logic and civility ever get in the way of a good witch hunt.
“Fabricated Controversy & Attack” indeed.
December 5th, 2006 at 3:28 pm[...] Right-wing talk show host Dennis Prager has raised a firestorm charging that Rep.-elect Kieth Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, must swear in using a Bible. He said that if Ellison swears in with a Quran, it would “undermin[e] American civilization” and be akin to swearing in with a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” [...]
December 5th, 2006 at 4:21 pmre: #200
I rest my case.
December 5th, 2006 at 4:50 pm[...] We’re very proud, in this country, of our commitment to equality, liberty, and the rule of law. But a lot of Americans are living in fear right now, and are willing to sacrifice much of the freedom that makes this country what it is in order to combat that fear. How far are they willing to go? Newt Gingrich is campaigning against the First Amendment. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress (and the guest of honor at the conference the flying imams were attending), is accused by Dennis Prager of undermining American civilization because he will take the oath of office on a Koran instead of a Bible. When radio host Jerry Klein suggested — as a spoof — that American Muslims should be forced to wear identifying tattoos or armbands, reminiscent of Nazi measures against Jews, he was disgusted to hear many audience members call in to express their full-throated support for the idea. [...]
December 6th, 2006 at 1:00 pm[...] Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted that right-wing talk radio host Dennis Prager — who demands that Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, must swear in using a Christian Bible — was appointed by President Bush to the taxpayer-funded United States Holocaust Memorial Council. [...]
December 6th, 2006 at 2:26 pmI respectfully request that those who agree with the accusation made here by Think Progress, which began this discussion, would respond intelligently to Dennis Prager’s rebuttal. I realize that those who are intellectually incapable of engaging in intelligent debate will continue to shake the rag doll of this site’s original irresponsible charges and conveniently ignore his response, but could at least the intelligent critics participate in some civil dialogue? Otherwise, it might appear that your case is full of holes.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:35 pm[...] Second, there is no document used during the actual swearing in of Representatives. Again, Representatives pledge to uphold the Constitution, not the Bible. Still, given the apocalyptic tone of Mr. Prager’s column, this fact is awfully funny. [...]
December 6th, 2006 at 4:35 pm[...] Before we delve any deeper into the muck, it’s important to point out a very important fact here. The swearing-in ceremony for members of Congress does not require them to take the oath of office on a Bible. It also doesn’t disallow it either, although most people simply raise their right hand. [...]
December 6th, 2006 at 7:41 pm[...] Right-wing talk show host Dennis Prager has raised a firestorm charging that Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, must swear in using a Bible. He said that if Ellison swears in with a Quran, it would “undermin[e] American civilization†and be akin to swearing in with a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.†[...]
December 6th, 2006 at 8:29 pmPlease notice, now that Dennis Prager’s response has deflated the original, unfounded charges made here on Think Progress, his critics look the other way and refuse to respond in an intelligent manner, but can only point to other articles that repeat the same charges. In my opinion, this is very telling.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:34 pmUS Constitution
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
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.
These right radio wing wingnuts like Prager, Limbaugh, Medved, Savage, Hannity, Coulter, ad nauseum, are Constitutionally contemptuous! They try at every opportunity to insert their Christian religion into government and mislead their followers to believe that the Constitution is as they would like to see it rather than being knowledgeable of the reality of what it actually says.
The problem with this is evident; that we now have a populace ignorant of the facts of early American history, especially those of the founding of our country, and the demands that religion and government be separate in our founding documents, particularly the Constitution.
The radio zealots, spinners of factual history, not only enable, but encourage religious zealotry, repeating ad nauseum the lie that our country was founded as a Christian Nation, which it certainly was not!
Our Constitution specifically states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United Statesâ€, but in their ignorance of facts or the right wing agenda to intentional distort the facts of American History to their listeners, a regular and ongoing agenda on their parts.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:18 pmSince there seems to be no willingness, either to acknowledge that Dennis Prager has already provided a response to these charges or to deal with them directly, I’ll at least post it here so that those willing to engage in intelligent debate can read rather than simply plug their ears.
“Accusation: I am advocating something unconstitutional by demanding that the Bible be included in oaths of office. I am reminded that Mr. Ellison has a right to practice the religion of his choice and that there shall be no religious test for candidates for office in America.
Response: I never even hinted that there should be a religious test. It has never occurred to me that only Christians run for office in America. The idea is particularly laughable in my case since I am not now, nor ever have been, a Christian. I am a Jew (a non-denominational religious Jew, for the record), and I would vote for any Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Mormon, atheist, Jew, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Wiccan, Confucian, Taoist or combination thereof whose social values I share. Conversely, I would not vote for a fellow Jew whose social values I did not share. I want people of every faith and of no faith who affirm the values I affirm to enter political life.
My belief that the Bible should be present at any oath (or affirmation) of office has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion of the office holder. And it never has until Keith Ellison’s decision to substitute a different text for the Bible. Many office holders who do not believe in the Bible at all or who reject some part have nevertheless used the Bible at their swearing-in (I noted this in my column). Even the vast majority of Jews elected to office have used a Bible containing both the Old and New Testaments, even though Jews do not regard the New Testament as part of their Bible. A tiny number of Jews have used only the Old Testament. As a religious Jew, I of course understand their decision, but I disagree with it.
I agree with the tens of thousands of office holders in American history who have honored the American tradition — I am well aware it is not a law, and I do not want it to be — of bringing a Bible to their ceremonial or actual swearing-in. Keith Ellison is ending that powerful tradition, and it is he who has called the public’s attention to his doing so. He obviously thinks this is important. I think it is important. My critics think it isn’t.
Why wouldn’t Ellison bring a Bible along with the Koran? That he chose not to is the narcissism of multiculturalism that I referred to: The individual’s culture trumps the national culture.
You don’t have to be Christian to acknowledge that the Bible is the source of America’s values. Virtually every founder of this country knew that and acknowledged it. The argument that founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deists, even if accurate (it is greatly exaggerated), makes my point, not my opponents’. The founders who were not believing Christians venerated the Bible as the source of America’s values just as much as practicing Christians did.
America derives its laws from its Constitution. It derives its values from the Bible. We don’t get inalienable rights from the Constitution; we get them from God. Which is exactly what the signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote: We are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, not by government and not by any man-made document. And that Creator and those inalienable rights emanate from the Bible. Keith Ellison’s freedom to openly believe and practice Islam and to run for elective office as a Muslim is a direct result of a society molded by the Bible and the people who believed in it, a fact he should be willing to honor as he is sworn in.
I cannot name any Western European country that does not have a document similar to the American Constitution and something akin to our Bill of Rights. It is, therefore, not the Constitution that has made America unique and a moral beacon to the world’s downtrodden. What has made America unique is the combination of Enlightenment ideas with our underlying Judeo-Christian values. (I have described 24 of those values in 24 columns in 2005, all available on the Internet through http://www.pragerradio.com.)
It was understood from the beginning of the republic that liberty is derived from God, not from man alone. That is why the Liberty Bell has an inscription from the Bible (from the Torah in the Old Testament) on it, not an inscription from any secular Enlightenment (or ancient Greek) source.”
December 7th, 2006 at 4:28 pmLeft Behind,
I am sorry but I do not follow your logic. If I understand you correctly, because our values are historically based on Judeo-Christian ones, Ellison a muslim should recognize those values and choose to be sworn in (photo-opt) with a Christian Bible. To best of my knowledge not all values are derived from religous origins. Values can also be byproducts from situations and environments (mythos as it is know philosophically). For example racism in america during the 50’s and 60’s, was more prevalent and obvious in the south but noticibly less serious in the rest of america. Those southerns that partook in the act of being racist did so as a result of values instilled in them by common concensus of their environment. These racist values can be argued to have no connection to the bible, yet directly influenced a mass amount of american citizens at the time. It is important to remember that even though there are certain values that are built into this country the actions of this great nation and its citizens do not always reflect them.
So if I am correct in assuming that not all values are derived religously, then it is reasonable that there may be other values then Judeo-Chritian that have had effect in shaping this country. It could easily be argued that there are strong British values that have been molded into america. And yes I do know that Britain and the rest of the U.K. are Christian nations but it would follow that just like america they have values independant of religous ones and that are unique or different from other christian nations. These unique values are the ones that cause problems for your argument. Since there is cause to argue that british values shaped this country ( which I wont argue now, but any citizen with the least bit of intelligence can guess at what I would argue) your arguement above suggests that those being sworn in should consider placing their hand on a Bible wrapped in the Union Jack.
Of course there is also the need to consider the diverse immigrant population along with the true native ones, and the values that they have injected into this great country. But I would never suggest that a representative of the people give individual recognition to everyone of these groups involved in making this country what it is. I think it would be best if we could find something that summarizes it all, something that represents every citizen, that represents the freedoms they enjoy and protects them from tyranny. Now that i think about it you know what would be perfect, The Constitution of the United States of America…..oh wait a minute thats what they do now. I tell you what, it amazes me to this day how clever those founding fathers were, Gob Bless them.
December 8th, 2006 at 3:13 pmThe discourse was not mine but Dennis Prager’s, so you’ll have to take your issues with his logic up with him.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:54 pmcertainly
December 11th, 2006 at 10:16 amThe most dangerous people – the ones who will kill you for your own good – are those who subordinate the individual to abstractions: the class, the master race, The chosen nation. They gain power because they are willing to perform the sleazy and degrading acts necessary to its achievement.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:11 pmThats not what Dennis Prager said. Let’s be honest. He wants the bible present as a continuation of a tradition started by George Washington. Dennis also suggested that the congressman should bring both. Disagree or not, lets tell the truth.
December 13th, 2006 at 2:55 amMr. Prager needs to get off his self-righteous hind end and read both the Qu’ran and the bible before he speaks. The two books are not that dissimilar. There are MULTIPLE references to VILE crimes, ordered by God, in the OT. BOTH books have examples of horrible crimes.
Both are also religious books, and requiring someone to take any type of oath on a religious book is against the Constitution. Prager says that he is fighting for the values of America, but he is perfectly willing to discard the first Amendment. Personally I think that if they should place their hands on anything it should be their HEART.
I also can’t believe we have all this fuss over a PHOTO OP! This book won’t be used in the actual oath as NO BOOK is. They are flipping out over him taking a PICTURE of himself with his hand on the Qu’ran!!!
This whole issue is nothing more than a way to spout hatred, racism and fundamentalist beliefs. Freedom of religion also mean freedom FROM religion. The fundamentalists need to remember this. They need to remember that we ALL have the right to believe, or not believe, in whichever religion we so choose, even if it disagrees with theirs.
December 21st, 2006 at 2:52 pm[...] Right-wing talk show host Dennis Prager raised a firestorm charging that Muslim Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) must swear in using a Bible. He said that if Ellison swears in with a Koran, it would “undermin[e] American civilization” and be akin to swearing in with a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” [...]
December 21st, 2006 at 10:00 pm[...] The Right-wing talk show host Dennis Prager raised a firestorm charging that Muslim Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) must swear in using a Bible. He said that if Ellison swears in with a Koran, it would “undermin[e] American civilization†and be akin to swearing in with a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.†read more from [thinkprogress.org] [...]
December 22nd, 2006 at 4:32 am[...] A few weeks after the election, conservative radio host Dennis Prager launched a harassment campaign targeting Ellison. Using the issue of Ellison’s supposed decision to swear his oath of office on the Koran – a ridiculous issue, for various reasons – as a hook, Prager launched a vicious attack on both Muslims and immigrants (which Ellison is not). [...]
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:12 pmThe Koran commands the killing of Christians and Jews and world conquest. One argument used for the swearing by the Koran is that he doesn’t believe in the Koran. That’s an odd argument.
December 22nd, 2006 at 4:04 pmI agree that the use of the Koran in Mr. Ellison’s swearing-in ceremony is a false issue. However, I wonder if anyone has had the guts to ask the Congressman-elect if he, as a Muslim, is committed to the universal spreading of Shariah law. If he is, then it is his swearing to uphold the Constitution that is false. For, in every place where Shariah has been applied there has been no true “free exercise of religion” (at least, for all non-Muslims and not even for many Muslims). This is the real “extreme right-wing agenda” and threat in today’s world.
December 23rd, 2006 at 2:18 pm[...] Nun kommt Radiomoderator Dennis Prager daher und stimmt seine Zuhörer auf die islamische Gefahr ein. Angeblich hatte der (bald-)Abgeordnete Ellis gesagt, er wolle bei seiner Amtseinführungszeremonie nicht auf die Bibel, sondern auf den Koran schwören. Ob Ellis dies tatsächlich gesagt hat ist nicht sicher. Dieser AOL-Bericht konnte von Ellis keine Aussage zu der Sache bekommen, und außerdem wird bei der Amtseinführung im Abgeordnetenhaus (in das Ellis gewählt wurde) anscheinend sowieso nicht auf ein religiöses Buch geschwört. [...]
December 26th, 2006 at 6:54 pmAs an American, I am scared to death of what’s going on in the world. I also believe every American should feel the same way. First, lets get one thing straight. The United States is at war with people who are so brainwashed with teachings that leaders have totally turned inside out. In my opinion, the smart thing to do right now is CLOSE THE BORDERS!!!!!!!!! Only let LEGAL Americans come and go!!!! (Also,please let illegal immigrants go too, just don’t let them return.) America was and is a christian found nation. America also has a strong christian heritage. I believe the christian bible should be used during the swearing in of an elected official. America is being flooded with Muslim people who are waiting for the perfect strike. We are even electing them to office. AMERICA OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE WHAT’S HAPPENING!!!!!!! STAND UP FOR WHAT’S RIGHT, REGARDLESS ON HOW MEAN OR HATEFUL YOU THINK IT IS!!!! Who cares if you hurt their feelings!! They don’t care if they hurt ours!!REMEMBER, THEY FLEW PLANES INTO OUR BUILDINGS AND KILLED 3000 PEOPLE!! NOW WE’RE ELECTING THEM INTO OFFICE!! (The way they want too)
December 29th, 2006 at 11:47 amJeff wrote “America was and is a christian found nation. America also has a strong christian heritage. I believe the christian bible should be used during the swearing in of an elected official.”
I give you the words of our founding father and President, Thomas Jefferson…
[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom … was finally passed, … a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.” The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.” — Autobiography, 1821.
Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. — to Danbury Baptists, 1802.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. — to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814.
The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man. — to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.
The law for religious freedom … [has] put down the aristocracy of the clergy and restored to the citizen the freedom of the mind. — to John Adams, 1813.
The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.
These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as “the father of the American Revolution.” To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.
Fundamentalist Christians are currently working overtime to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country on “biblical principles,” but history simply does not support their view. The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians. Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric. In a letter to Horatio Spafford in 1814, Jefferson said, “In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes” (George Seldes, The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371). In a letter to Mrs. Harrison Smith, he wrote, “It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest” (August 6, 1816).
Jefferson was just as suspicious of the traditional belief that the Bible is “the inspired word of God.” He rewrote the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament and compiled his own gospel version known as The Jefferson Bible, which eliminated all miracles attributed to Jesus and ended with his burial. The Jeffersonian gospel account contained no resurrection, a twist to the life of Jesus that was considered scandalous to Christians but perfectly sensible to Jefferson’s Deistic mind. In a letter to John Adams, he wrote, “To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise” (August 15, 1820). In saying this, Jefferson was merely expressing the widely held Deistic view of his time, which rejected the mysticism of the Bible and relied on natural law and human reason to explain why the world is as it is. Writing to Adams again, Jefferson said, “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter” (April 11, 1823). These were hardly the words of a devout Bible-believer.
Jefferson didn’t just reject the Christian belief that the Bible was “the inspired word of God”; he rejected the Christian system too. In Notes on the State of Virginia, he said of this religion, “There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites” (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, “Politics and Religious Illiteracy,” Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33). Anyone today who would make a statement like this or others we have quoted from Jefferson’s writings would be instantly branded an infidel, yet modern Bible fundamentalists are frantically trying to cast Jefferson in the mold of a Bible believing Christian. They do so, of course, because Jefferson was just too important in the formation of our nation to leave him out if Bible fundamentalists hope to sell their “Christian-nation” claim to the public. Hence, they try to rewrite history to make it appear that men like Thomas Jefferson had intended to build our nation on “biblical principles.” The irony of this situation is that the Christian leaders of Jefferson’s time knew where he stood on “biblical principles,” and they fought desperately, but unsuccessfully, to prevent his election to the presidency. Saul K. Padover’s biography related the bitterness of the opposition that the clergy mounted against Jefferson in the campaign of 1800
INTERESTING THINGS HAPPEN WHEN YOU READ!!!!
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm[...] Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) warned last month that “if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.” Talk show host Dennis Prager said Ellison’s act “undermines American civilization.” [...]
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:43 amHe’s jewish!! Of course he’s not going to agree with anything that has to do with Islam!!
January 4th, 2007 at 9:59 amYes sir Jim, interesting things do happen when you read. Since you read, you should know that George Washington placed his hand on the Christian Bible and added a kiss to it. Deist or not, the founding fathers established this country on Christian biblical principles. They prayed at meetings, had church services every week and most definitely prayed for guidance during those times.
John Adams
“I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.” December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –October 11, 1798
“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.â€
January 4th, 2007 at 5:53 pm[letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress]
Can anyone out there show me where Prager compared the Koran to Mein Kampf? Show me where he said it is “required” to use the bible or any religous text. Show me where he or anyone else is “forcing” religion on anyone, like, say, judges who force gay marriage into a society. And why did George Washington use a bible? Where did the people who wrote the constitution get their values from? Why are there religous quotes from the bible engraved in the Liberty Bell? Where in the constitution does it say it is unlawful to use religous values to make law?
January 4th, 2007 at 7:36 pmDid someone really ask “where is the tolerance for the people of Iraq?” Why didn’t I hear that one over the past 30+ years while Hussein was gassing them and shoving them down wood chippers?
January 4th, 2007 at 8:01 pmI didn’t read all your responses but Prager didn’t say what the article says he said. Get your facts staight.
An interesting question though is did Ellison say God when he took the oath.
For you liberals God IS in the oath.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:36 pmWhat is wrong with calling the Koran “The bible of Islam” ?
January 5th, 2007 at 11:01 pmWas Thomas Jefferson our only founding father? According to Jim, I guess he was.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:45 pmSince when does “Freedom of Speech” EXCLUDE what most of you on this forum call “wingers, wing-nuts, right wingnuts, etc” The same right is afforded to each side; neither should want to “shut down” the other. We can disagree, but why not do it in a civilized manner, and get ourselves over this stupid name-calling and try to accomplish something for the nation instead of trying to tear it and ourselves asunder. Tell me, where would we be without Hannity, Coulter, Rush? That’s correct! One-sided control. Is that what we are asking for?
January 8th, 2007 at 3:41 pmJeff (218),
I do not follow your logic. In 1995 Timothy McVeigh placed a 5000lb bomb in a federal building in oklahoma city. That bomb killed 168 people and injured 800+ including children in the daycare. There are some interesting stats for McVeigh, He was a young, White, Christian, Male, who served for this nations Army and earned a Bronze medal, as a veteran of the Gulf war. Now if i understand you correctly as a result of this terrorist attack, we should wake up and realize that we should deport all White christian males, much less let them run for office. I am sorry but i cant follow this sort of logic.
And as a side note it is important to realize that being Christian does not make you a native just as being Muslim does not make you an immigrant.
January 8th, 2007 at 4:05 pmMcVeigh was ONE guy, and we all agree a nutcase. He was widely condemned by everyone and rightly put to death. Nobody, and I mean nobody, made any excuses for this wacko. On the other hand, fanatic Muslims have been causing havoc all over the world for decades now and all I hear from the left is that it is our fault, that we deserve it. We never heard from anybody asking ‘where did we go wrong’ or ‘what did we do to make him do this’ or ‘it is our society’s fault’ regarding McVeigh. He was a mass-murdering thug, period! I never hear anyone on the left condemn Muslims when they blow up innocent women and children. It is George Bush’s fault, and America is to blame. Why are Muslims slaughtering blacks in Africa or Christians in Lebonon? To the left, there must be some legitimate reason for them to do this. Why didn’t McVeigh recieve this same lack of condemnation? Because he didn’t deserve it! And neither do the murderous thugs that have infiltrated the Muslim faith.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:51 pmI must say; the spin that takes place on these liberal web sites is laughable. Dennis Prager didn’t say half the things he is accused of saying here. But you people sure are good at name calling. I’ll give you that. Take the comment from Nitch. Where did Jeff say that being a Christian makes you a native and being Muslim makes one an immigrant? Where on earth did you spin that one from? Prager comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf? What?? When I say I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, I’m called a “right-wing bigot”. I can’t wait to see what names I’m called for writing this article.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:00 amThank you Helen, you said exactly what I was going to say. Also Nitch, nowhere in my comment did I say a native has to be a white christian. That is just putting words in my mouth. I was explaining Americas christian heritage and how our founding fathers built this nation upon christian biblical principles. Second, I was also stating my opinion on Americas borders, protection and terrorism. We are at war with Islam wacko’s. Yes, I believe there are kind hearted muslims in this crazy world, but NONE of us know who’s good and who’s a terrorist. I am sorry, but I am tired of being nice to these people. They shut down a gas station just west of my city because the crazy arabs were supporters of Al Queda. That should tell you that they are here and have been here. These people cheered, danced, whooped and hollered the day of 9/11 screaming “HOORAY, PRAISE BE TO ALLAH, WE HAVE BEEN SENDING MONEY FOR YEARS FOR THIS TO HAPPEN!!” I am sick and tired of being Mr. Nice Guy here in America. Like I said before I am not going to sit back and let these crazy people take over my GOD BLESSED COUNTRY that my fore fathers gave there heart and soul for, and that our soldiers are fighting for over there right this very hour!!! You’re are crazy if you think I am going to live in terror for the rest of my life like those poor people do in the middle east!! That’s what the terrorist want, and that’s what they are after!! They hate our freedom to worship the God of our choice and to live the way we feel is the correct way, and I will not sit back and let it be taken away from me!!!
January 9th, 2007 at 5:19 pmI know that you did not say that, which is why I made the “side note”. The reason I made the comment is that far to often people think of immigrants as those who are racially, culturally, or religiously different then yourself. My point is that if your were to close the borders it is not just to the Muslims or the middle east, it is also to other predominately white Christian societies, most of which are where we derive our “heritage” from. Remember even the British are immigrants, just like my step mother, brother, and grandparents. And to close the borders would mean they would have to leave too. This is why I made the comment I know you did not say anything like this and I did not intend to make it sound like something you said. I just think it is a point that is too often forgotten.
But to be fair you did use our Christian heritage and an attack on us by particular ethnic group in an argument to close the borders. There was at least precedence for me to make the comment. Also on the other side of the coin unless you know them those supporters of Al Queda, you spoke of, personally there is no way for you to know if they are immigrants or natural born citizens, they even may have gotten citizen status from or government. Which if any of these are the case even if we did close the borders they would still be down the street from you celebrating just the same, unless i musunderstand your point and you are actually promoting martial law.
The point i was trying to make with McVeigh is a simple example of a logical fallacy, a tool of debate. The fallacies were Non sequiter ( it does not follow) and Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). In Jeffs original post (218) he used christian traditions and a attack by terrorists that happen to be muslim as reasons to close the borders. I dismiss the heritage point because you cannot make any logical arguments based on heritage (example. the south was rich with exports when there was slavery, thus we should allow for it again) such arguments lack any logical backing. In regards to Non sequiter ( it does not follow) Jeff argued that (A) Terrorists attacked this country, plus (B) The religous beliefs of the terrorist should be taken into account and represent that group as a whole which equals (c) The deportation of those who fall into (a) and (b). That was the argument I made for McVeigh, he was (A) a terrorist, (B) a white, christian, veteran, and natural born citizen of this country, so according to jeffs argument A + B must = C if it can not be universally applied then it holds no logical basis and must be dismissed as invalid.
To clarify I am not on the side of the terrorists, I am on the side of freedom, which is the true great heritage of this country, but freedom comes at a cost, and you may have to endure living around or dealing with things you do not like, but for every person you do not like, there are probably just as many people who do not like you, and would enjoy nothing more to see you deported.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:22 am[...] According to Think Progress, right-wing radio host Dennis Prager wrote a column earlier this week bitching about U.S. Representative-elect Keith Ellison’s (D-MN) intent to take his oath of office not on the Bible, but on the Koran. Ellison is the first Muslim ever elected to Congress. Prager claimed this “act undermines American civilization,” and compared it to being sworn in with a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” [...]
January 13th, 2007 at 3:45 pmwhy dont you suck my balls
January 15th, 2007 at 1:09 amTo comment #235: Brilliant! You probably stayed up all night to come up with that one.
January 18th, 2007 at 12:05 amTo #234 (and previous writers): When and where did Dennis Prager compare Mein Kampf to the Koran??? Please quit the lies.
To Nitch: Why say Jeff said something and then say “I know you didn’t say it”? And did your brother, mother and grandparents come here illegally? My guess is they did not. I, personally, don’t give a damn where one come’s from, only that you come here legally. That’s all we ask. And nobody is asking for martial law. We are saying there is a real bad seed sprouting in middle eastern countries and we should concentrate on them more so than those who don’t. Just like we did with those who came from Germany and Japan during WW2. My mother came here from Germany in the late 1930’s and was harrassed. She knew she would and expected it. Also, McVeigh did not blow up the building in OK City in the name of religion, or of Christianity. Those who are blowing up building’s and innocent people and everything they can in the Mideast and beyond do do it in the name of religion . . . Islam. And your point that the South was “rich in exports during slavery”? Are you saying that they were rich in exports BECAUSE of slavery??? Why did slavery end? Because of our constitution or because religous folk demanded it? Your A+B=C argument is ridiculous. What “group” are you talking about? You keep naming McVeigh like he represents some large group. McVeigh is dead and his cohorts are in prison. I am sure there are some who wish to see me “deported’, (even though I am legal). But for what? Certainly not because I killed someone because he or she is an infidel. But you are right on one thing: Freedom does come at a cost. We paid a high price to get it and we must pay an even higher price to keep it!
Eric
I could not believe the amount of quality material on this site. The site is extremely eyecatching and pulls the reader straight it, the articles are great quality and are very professionally written. I have seen too many of these sites where it looks…
March 20th, 2008 at 2:40 am