thinkprogress.org— Dennis Prager, who is demanding Muslim Rep.-elect Keith Ellison swear in using the bible, was appointed by President Bush in September to the taypayer-funded U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council.
Dec 5, 2006View in Crawl 4
The common thread here is that our elected officials need to swear an oath of allegiance to the people that they serve and that there are negative consequences for those that fail to do so -- from impeachment/firing to jail and fines for corruption. I guess we are all seeking accountability from those who have been entrusted to serve the people and uphold the laws of this great country. So their promise and oath should be to these very ideals! The pomp and ceremony (which the selected instrument to swear upon is a part of), while a nicety, is ultimately irrelevant.
You can't be serious!!!! As if by swearing on any religious texts, somehow negates any ability to lie thereafter. What a joke! My friend, taking someone's word for something is our ONLY recourse as human beings to take as truth something that cannot be verily proven...namely, in this case, what someone is thinking inside their own minds.
Hey, I'm confused. If they do not swear on the Bible during the swearing in ceremony, why is Ellison saying that he will swear in on the Koran? Is it or isn't it a tradition then, to swear on the Bible?If it is not, maybe Mr. Ellison is saying screw you and your traditions, they don't mean a thing.I personally don't care. If it has been done for a long time in the past, what is the harm in doing it now. It is not a confirmation of your belief in the Bible, in God or anything else. It is just saying that you will swear to uphold the constitution. If it's a tradition, just go along with it. If Ellison is doing it to just make waves then he is an ass.
10lbhammer is saying that there is no swearing in on a bible. If this is really the case then why is Ellison being sworn in on the Koran. If he is insisting on being sworn in on the Koran, even if it is not done then he is an ass.true2hear says that there is a swearing in ceremony on the bible. If this is really the case and if it has been the case for 100 years or so, big deal. I'm sure that there are ceremonial things in all parliments and governments around that world that have been around for a while that are not keeping with the current times and thinking, but they continue to do it because that is what has been done in the past. When you say screw you and your traditions, we're doing it my way, then he's an ass.
@marklj"Separation of church and state" is normal person talk for legalese of "Establishment Clause of The First Amendment". And it is extended to the states by virtue of the 14th amendment. But I'm guessing you already knew that. And if you're looking for a legal document that has these words in it - check out <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education.">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education.</a> "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here."Is a supreme court opinion a legal document?
"The Bible is worse btw."I suggest to do some reading up before concluding that. The Bible is divided into two sections, where the Old Testament has a nice selection of violence, crime & stiff laws. New Testament changes that, lifting the stiffness of the law, and using no violence (except throwing over a few stands once :) Bible goes from rough to mild.The Quran, interestingly, is also dividided into two, but that's a hidden fact, as the contents is presented out of order. If ordered chronologically, it turns out that the first part (the Meccan part) reads like your average fire-and-brimstone preacher. It's not pretty reading with all those threats that everyone not believing in Muhammad will go to Hell, but at least he's just throwing around words. In the second part, Muhammad escapes to Medina and starts endorsing violence and plunder in the name of Islam. He has significantly more success, and that movement is with us today, still.For a detailed analysis, there's Prophet of Doom, available at www.prophetofdoom.net, which goes through all the early Islamic scriptures (Quran & Hadith) and puts it into context. There's an audio book version posted here: <a class="user" href="http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3563871/PoD_Audio">http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3563871/PoD_Audio</a>Since the life of Muhammad even includes a small-scale holocaust, setting an example for future atrocities, I think Dennis Prager has a very valid point. In Islamic tradtion, Muslims are not supposed to have non-Muslims as superious, nor to have any authority higher than Islam. That causes some conflicts with the requirement to be loyal to the US, and needs to be addressed. Glad he does.
For everyone here who is comparing the Bible and Koran for relative bloodthirsiness, there's an important point that you're missing. The Koran is considered the infallible, perfect received word of Allah - every passage is unalterable and literal. The Bible is not held to such a tethered, static interpretation. Similarly, those bizarre, getting-cobweb passages from the Old Testament aren't the ones preached in churchs; the same cannot be said of the Koran as imams and muftis quote some of the most violent passages from the Koran and call Jews "apes and pigs." This is common and you can find many examples at sites like MEMRI which feature translations of media from the Middle-East.<a class="user" href="http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01002">http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01002</a>
Prager won't say it but I will: the real problem is electing a Muslim to Congress.Especially a CAIR backed Muslim. For those who don't know, numerous officials from CAIR have been linked, prosecuted, and found guilty of connections with terrorist organizations. And as a reminder, Islam is not a race. It is a belief system. It is perfectly ethical to dislike or even hate a belief system and the people who hold it.
dwiezelDec 6, 2006
The common thread here is that our elected officials need to swear an oath of allegiance to the people that they serve and that there are negative consequences for those that fail to do so -- from impeachment/firing to jail and fines for corruption. I guess we are all seeking accountability from those who have been entrusted to serve the people and uphold the laws of this great country. So their promise and oath should be to these very ideals! The pomp and ceremony (which the selected instrument to swear upon is a part of), while a nicety, is ultimately irrelevant.
10lbhammerDec 6, 2006
huh? youmakenosense
true2heartDec 6, 2006
You can't be serious!!!! As if by swearing on any religious texts, somehow negates any ability to lie thereafter. What a joke! My friend, taking someone's word for something is our ONLY recourse as human beings to take as truth something that cannot be verily proven...namely, in this case, what someone is thinking inside their own minds.
rlh1Dec 6, 2006
Hey, I'm confused. If they do not swear on the Bible during the swearing in ceremony, why is Ellison saying that he will swear in on the Koran? Is it or isn't it a tradition then, to swear on the Bible?If it is not, maybe Mr. Ellison is saying screw you and your traditions, they don't mean a thing.I personally don't care. If it has been done for a long time in the past, what is the harm in doing it now. It is not a confirmation of your belief in the Bible, in God or anything else. It is just saying that you will swear to uphold the constitution. If it's a tradition, just go along with it. If Ellison is doing it to just make waves then he is an ass.
rlh1Dec 6, 2006
10lbhammer is saying that there is no swearing in on a bible. If this is really the case then why is Ellison being sworn in on the Koran. If he is insisting on being sworn in on the Koran, even if it is not done then he is an ass.true2hear says that there is a swearing in ceremony on the bible. If this is really the case and if it has been the case for 100 years or so, big deal. I'm sure that there are ceremonial things in all parliments and governments around that world that have been around for a while that are not keeping with the current times and thinking, but they continue to do it because that is what has been done in the past. When you say screw you and your traditions, we're doing it my way, then he's an ass.
dwxpubDec 7, 2006
@marklj"Separation of church and state" is normal person talk for legalese of "Establishment Clause of The First Amendment". And it is extended to the states by virtue of the 14th amendment. But I'm guessing you already knew that. And if you're looking for a legal document that has these words in it - check out <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education.">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education.</a> "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here."Is a supreme court opinion a legal document?
frodo42Dec 10, 2006
"The Bible is worse btw."I suggest to do some reading up before concluding that. The Bible is divided into two sections, where the Old Testament has a nice selection of violence, crime & stiff laws. New Testament changes that, lifting the stiffness of the law, and using no violence (except throwing over a few stands once :) Bible goes from rough to mild.The Quran, interestingly, is also dividided into two, but that's a hidden fact, as the contents is presented out of order. If ordered chronologically, it turns out that the first part (the Meccan part) reads like your average fire-and-brimstone preacher. It's not pretty reading with all those threats that everyone not believing in Muhammad will go to Hell, but at least he's just throwing around words. In the second part, Muhammad escapes to Medina and starts endorsing violence and plunder in the name of Islam. He has significantly more success, and that movement is with us today, still.For a detailed analysis, there's Prophet of Doom, available at www.prophetofdoom.net, which goes through all the early Islamic scriptures (Quran & Hadith) and puts it into context. There's an audio book version posted here: <a class="user" href="http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3563871/PoD_Audio">http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3563871/PoD_Audio</a>Since the life of Muhammad even includes a small-scale holocaust, setting an example for future atrocities, I think Dennis Prager has a very valid point. In Islamic tradtion, Muslims are not supposed to have non-Muslims as superious, nor to have any authority higher than Islam. That causes some conflicts with the requirement to be loyal to the US, and needs to be addressed. Glad he does.
seafoodgumboDec 13, 2006
For everyone here who is comparing the Bible and Koran for relative bloodthirsiness, there's an important point that you're missing. The Koran is considered the infallible, perfect received word of Allah - every passage is unalterable and literal. The Bible is not held to such a tethered, static interpretation. Similarly, those bizarre, getting-cobweb passages from the Old Testament aren't the ones preached in churchs; the same cannot be said of the Koran as imams and muftis quote some of the most violent passages from the Koran and call Jews "apes and pigs." This is common and you can find many examples at sites like MEMRI which feature translations of media from the Middle-East.<a class="user" href="http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01002">http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01002</a>
Closed AccountDec 20, 2006
Prager won't say it but I will: the real problem is electing a Muslim to Congress.Especially a CAIR backed Muslim. For those who don't know, numerous officials from CAIR have been linked, prosecuted, and found guilty of connections with terrorist organizations. And as a reminder, Islam is not a race. It is a belief system. It is perfectly ethical to dislike or even hate a belief system and the people who hold it.