Oath, what oath?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by palmbeachdude, Nov 29, 2006.

  1. 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.

    A Palestinian woman holds the Koran during a Hamas rally against Israeli troops operation in northern Gaza strip November 3, 2006. Israeli troops shot and killed two Palestinian women acting as human shields between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen during a clash at a Gaza mosque on Friday, witnesses said, before the gunmen escaped. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)

    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.

    Be the first to read Dennis Prager's column.
  2. Let him place his hand on the Koran if he wishes to. Who would be offended by that and why ?
  3. Only his left hand, let him place his LEFT hand on the Koran.

    And also, the infidels who swear Ellison in, can handle the Koran as much, anyway they want, as well.
  4. The better questions are:
    Why is he offended by the Bible?
    Why does he expect our laws/rules to be changed to suit his religious beliefs?
    If he loves the Koran/Islam so much why doesn't he live in a predominantly Muslim country rather than a predominately Christian country?
    Multiculturalism is bullshit. There is one culture this country...the American culture. Assimilate or leave!
  5. Jerome Bettis: American's should use a real bible with the word's God and Jesus in it. We're not in some raghead place like Iran or Canada.

    Burt Reynolds: Buying oil and shish kabob from those guys is one thing but this takes it too far.

    Man law says: NO KORANS!
  6. Four presidents have been inaugurated without swearing an oath on the Bible. Jewish politicians, most notably Rep. Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) have required the Torah instead of the Christian bible when taking their oaths. What is the problem?

    See this blog under "Religious Tests For Politicians?"
  7. Prager is a blowhard jerkoff who tries to pretend that he's smart....much like Malkin. From http://www.andrewsullivan.com/...

    Mr Prager, there has never been, and is no, requirement that a member of Congress put his hand on anything when taking the oath of office. There is nothing in the law requiring a member to do anything in particular with his hands. A member is free to put his hand on a Bible, on any other book or for that matter, to keep his hands at his sides or in his pockets or to make bunny shadows with them during the taking of the oath.

    The very first law passed under the Constitution was enacted on June 1, 1789 (Statute I, Chapter 1 (1 Stat. 23)): "An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths." That law says nothing about what someone taking the oath of office is supposed to do with his hands; nor does it say anything about Bibles or any other books being involved in the process. That original law currently is disbursed in 2 U.S.C. Sections 21, et seq. and 5 U.S.C. Section 3331 and in none of these sections (nor in the Rules of the House of Representatives) is there any requirement about what one does with his hands.
  8. kut2k2


    While I agree that it's amusing to see kneejerk reactionaries go apeshit over Ellison's stance, it really has been blown out of proportion. Christian politicians get sworn in on their personal Bibles all the time. All Ellison had to do was bring his personal Koran to the swearing in and use that ... quietly.

    What's all the public fuss about? :confused:
  9. Sam321


    I’m offended. I’m an American and I’m even more offended that Sharia Law has made its way into the British courts. How pathetic.

    Thanks liberals, for doing what you always do best: Destroy your own cultural and religious majority, and enable virulent foreign religions and cultures to barge right in and take their places, while you think you are achieving your naïve and stupid cultural/religious equality.

    Multicultural equality is a damned lie: as soon as cultures attain equal power, they always fight. Cultural equality ALWAYS leads to conflict, war and plenty of bloodshed.

    Islam is pulling all the stops. Why shouldn’t it be? Western society and Christianity are not protecting what they are and what they have. Taking the oath on the Bible is our tradition, which is the point. By defending this ritual, we defend and preserve our society.

    But Christianity is on its back with four legs up bending over and grabbing the soap bar every time someone offends a Muslim. Mosques and medrassas are popping up all over the place and in the most remote places in America and the Pope is forced to kiss ass in Turkey.

    Today we have one Congressman, and his hand on the Koran. Tomorrow it will be like the shit going on in Europe. Hand on the bible? Hand on the Koran? What’s the difference? Who should be offended? Think again.
    #10     Dec 1, 2006