America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2004
70,230
10,864
2,040
This shouldn't be ALLOWED....NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS!
:mad:
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 28, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.

Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columinst for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...des_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on
 
The Quran isnt a Bible, it doesnt claim to be a Bible.

If he has a problem with swearing on the Bible, maybe he shouldnt have run.

Besides, isnt it against Sharia law to swear on the Quran?
 
I see nothing wrong with him wanting to swear on the Quran instead of hte Bible. He doesn't believe in the Bible, but the Quran. If you really have to give a flying shit about that, I say whatever.
 
The Quran isnt a Bible, it doesnt claim to be a Bible.

If he has a problem with swearing on the Bible, maybe he shouldnt have run.

Besides, isnt it against Sharia law to swear on the Quran?

I don't think he should have to swear on the Bible. If you are right about the swearing on the Koran, he shouldn't do that either. He has every right to make an affirmation, or an oath upon the Koran or whatever, if that is his choice. There is no state religion, not Christianity, not Judaism, etc.

Personally I want to slap the state that elected him, the ties between him and CAIR and other Islamic groups promoting Sharia are strong, but the people had the right, they made their choice; so he has the right to be administered by the way he wishes.
 
I don't think he should have to swear on the Bible. If you are right about the swearing on the Koran, he shouldn't do that either. He has every right to make an affirmation, or an oath upon the Koran or whatever, if that is his choice. There is no state religion, not Christianity, not Judaism, etc.

Personally I want to slap the state that elected him, the ties between him and CAIR and other Islamic groups promoting Sharia are strong, but the people had the right, they made their choice; so he has the right to be administered by the way he wishes.
unfortunately, it wasn't the STATE that elected him, it was his ultra-liberal district, which I am not apart of, so I had no say in his election. I am in district 6, he is 5.
 
unfortunately, it wasn't the STATE that elected him, it was his ultra-liberal district, which I am not apart of, so I had no say in his election. I am in district 6, he is 5.

I know, I should have put that different. I wonder, how 'Muslim' is the fifth?
 
What is happening to my country when you have a U.S. congressman who wants to be sworn in by the Koran, the book and belief system of my enemy.

I tell ya what's happenening - we have folks like those even in this forum who say "Ahh.... this isn't THAT big of a deal.... ... let the man swear on anything he wants to etc..etc.."


It's that principle of multiculturism that will KILL America...... There's nothing wrong w/ diff cultures coming here - after all we're supposed to be the "great melting pot" - it's when those cultures refuse to adapt to American Heritage and insist on forcing their culture over that Heritage that drags all we hold dear down the toilet...
 
I don't think he should have to swear on the Bible. If you are right about the swearing on the Koran, he shouldn't do that either. He has every right to make an affirmation, or an oath upon the Koran or whatever, if that is his choice. There is no state religion, not Christianity, not Judaism, etc.

Bingo!

*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kathianne again.*
 
I dont see the problem. He doesnt believe in the bible so there is nothing preventing him from breaking his oath if he swears upon a meaningless symbol to uphold his office. It'd be like any of us swearing on a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich to uphold life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The object truly is insignificant. Regular congressmen swear on the bible all the time and that doesnt stop them form breaking the constitution.

This is a non issue.
 
What is happening to my country when you have a U.S. congressman who wants to be sworn in by the Koran, the book and belief system of my enemy.


Looks like we are going the way of France, Germany, and the UK.
How nice for us :(

I agree with Kathianne though the real issue is him being in office in the first place....
 
Looks like we are going the way of France, Germany, and the UK.
How nice for us :(

I agree with Kathianne though the real issue is him being in office in the first place....

What other non-illegal factors do you think should disqualify a person from public service?
 
There were a couple of presidents (Hoover was one) who didn't swear an oath on the bible, but simply affirmed their oath or whatever. Which makes sense, as Jesus forbids the swearing of oaths in Matthew 5:33.
 
Another tempest in a teapot fomented by right wing-nuts because they are intellectually bankrupt. America is NOT a Christian country. It is a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sihks, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Wiccans and any ohter religion one might care to name.

<blockquote>Congress shall make no law <b>respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof</b>; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - 1st Amendment, U.S. Constitution</blockquote>

Mr. Ellison, in choosing to be sworn in on a copy of the Q'uran, is exercising his right to religious freedom. Get over it.
 
Another tempest in a teapot fomented by right wing-nuts because they are intellectually bankrupt. America is NOT a Christian country. It is a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sihks, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Wiccans and any ohter religion one might care to name.

<blockquote>Congress shall make no law <b>respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof</b>; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - 1st Amendment, U.S. Constitution</blockquote>

Mr. Ellison, in choosing to be sworn in on a copy of the Q'uran, is exercising his right to religious freedom. Get over it.



If this is not a Christian conutry, why does 95% of the people celebrate Christmas?

And why does the ACLU and kook libs have the annual war on Christmas to appease the 5% of morons who want to ruin Christmas for the rest of us?

Left to kook libs, America would not be a Christian country. The fight still rages
 
If this is not a Christian conutry, why does 95% of the people celebrate Christmas?

And why does the ACLU and kook libs have the annual war on Christmas to appease the 5% of morons who want to ruin Christmas for the rest of us?

Left to kook libs, America would not be a Christian country. The fight still rages

For once bully is right. This is not a Christian Country in that we are not forced to obey christianity by the government. We are a nation overwhelmingly populated by Christians but that does not make us a Christian country.

We are a Free Religion nation where every religion has equal access to be expressed without retribution from the government. Of course lately some have sued to break this measure of the constitution by restricting the fair practice of Christians in this nation.
 
For once bully is right. This is not a Christian Country in that we are not forced to obey christianity by the government. We are a nation overwhelmingly populated by Christians but that does not make us a Christian country.

We are a Free Religion nation where every religion has equal access to be expressed without retribution from the government. Of course lately some have sued to break this measure of the constitution by restricting the fair practice of Christians in this nation.



This explains why discrimination agaist Christians is so accepted by the liberal media.

So now, this nation needs to bend over backwards to appease the minority of non Christians

Sorry to disagree with you, I am waiting for BP to right about one thing
 

Forum List

Back
Top