| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
America’s first Muslim in Congress, Keith Ellison, wants to take his oath of office on the Koran, not the Bible
Update 12/4/06: Please see my most recent post which clarifies my position on this issue here.
——–
Dennis Prager has an explosive (no pun intended) column up today that talks about incoming freshman Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim ever to serve in the US Congress, who has said he will not take his oath of office on the Bible and instead will insist on being sworn in on the Koran:
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.
This is how it starts. They can’t defeat us militarily, but they will most certainly try to defeat us using our own laws and customs against us.
Make sure to read the whole thing.
Flasback companion pieces:
- Mark Steyn on multicultural sensitivity and how it can have brutal consequences
- “Infiltration” by Paul Sperry
Related: More on mulitculturalism gone amok, via Captain Ed.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
34 Responses to “America’s first Muslim in Congress, Keith Ellison, wants to take his oath of office on the Koran, not the Bible”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
No bible ?? No office….sounds good to me.
I second that Fat Tone.
I am of mixed thought on this.
One that this is to symbolize an oath taken on what we hold sacred to fulfil our duties of what we are elected to, and that we so swear on that which is most holy to us.
If the bible is not holy to a muslim, then that oath means nothing, same as if I, as a christian, was to swear an oath on the koran, it would mean nothing to me because it is nothing I hold dear or believe in. So in essense a worthless oath taken in my opinion.
The second part is that for all the hating of anything christian related in hte government or being used in government or its ceremonies, it is really suprising that this is still being used and not being sued over.
Where is the ACLU? A bible is being used to swear people in, to take an oath over….and its in the government. Oh my GOD, someone call the ACLU!!
Now, I understand for Americans, we tend to think in christian based government, and swearing in on a bible is a tradition, but it is a useless tradition in my eyes if the oath they take or swear to means absolutely nothing because they don’t believe in what they are swearing over and to.
As for the article pointing out that jews don’t believe in this or that and still swear or take an oath over the bible, and others do the same even though they too do not believe in it – means to me that these people swear to or take an oath that is false, something that has no binding meaning to them, so means nothing to them.
Similiar to, “I swear on my mothers grave”, but your mother is still alive….
I guess it boils down to, do you want them taking an oath / swearing to, that you believe in, or that they believe in?
Do you want something that makes YOU feel like they are bound by their oath, or want something that they believe binds them to what they have sworn to?
If it is a matter of the swearing to and oath that they take, and we find it is a very serious matter, and something that binds them to their durty, then it needs to be something that THEY believe in, not us.
I may not like it anymore than you, but swearing to something you do not believe means your oath is useless.
And if this whole thing is about swearing in on useless oaths…then do away with the damn ceremony because there is enough useless things in government, we don’t need to keep useless ceremonies that center around useless oaths.
Swear to what will hold you to your oath or do away with the ceremony.
Anything else is just for show.
As long as he doesn’t start asking civilians to fly to the middle east and act as human shields… I have no problem. Nice video on the latter in youtube: LINK
Well, it’s already well established in Islamic thought that it’s acceptable to lie to infidels, so what’s the big deal with the oath in the first place? I’d support not having him swear anything, at least maybe the infidels amongst us would understand that we cannot take Ellison – or any other Muslim – at his word.
Harsh? Damn straight, it’s harsh. Also realistic – we need to hold Islam’s feet to the fire until the so-called “moderate” Muslims demand reformation and clean their own house. Islamophobia is not the greatest threat to Islam today, radical Muslims are. We need to start taking these people at their word, and shove it in the faces of CAIR and their terror funding ilk.
- Can’t be done….the oath of office is taken on the bible, the basis of our governmental structure “trusting in G_d”, by law. It’s not focused on religiousity like the SecProggs like to lie, and go on about, it’s based on “trust”. We trust in g_d, and therefore you take the oath knowing if you’re lying you will answer to him. he can “imagine” any G_d he likes while he’s taking the oath. the oath is also over, and above religion, and to the country. thats the whole point of the oath of alliegence, not to any specific G_d. the SecProggs are always trying to morph the oaths meaning, so they can attack religion in general.
- Bang
What if the first congressman convert to Voodooism wanted to take the oath on the carcass of a dead chicken? Slippery slopes anyone?
Then do away with the whole thing.
It is a useless oath if it is not sworn on or taken an oath to something that is not believed.
Am I really to believe a islam believing muslim will think the oath they take on a christian bible is worth anything?
Same goes for them ‘coverting’ people by force, if you convert someone by force, that isn’t conversion, conversion is by choice – force conversion there is no choice, convert or die.
If you do not believe in what you are swearing to or on, then your words are false and meaningless, and the whole thing should just be abolished since it is useless then.
Backbone, that’ll be next.
Greetings. It occurs to me that it should be regarded as blasphemy to introduce any holy book into the inauguration of a statutorily-designated period of lying, cheating, scandal, slander and evasion of responsibility.
Less blasphemous to take the book into the bathroom; at least there’s little pretense about what’s really going on there.
Humor aside, if you know that Ellison regards the message of Christianity as “shirk” (associating a mere human being with G-d), and is praying and intending against that message while placing his hand on that book, isn’t that especially a form of blasphemy in itself?
Sounds like Prager – whom I like and whose books are on my shelf – found a slow news day and got scared.
Prager’s argument is entirely without merit. The Constitution imposes no requirement that the Bible, or any other book, be used when administering an oath of office. In fact, Article VI specifically prohibits any religious test for holding office. If Kllison wants to take his oath on the Koran, or the Manhattan Yellow Pages, who cares ?
My own thoughts are here:
LINK
Coming up after the break: we’ll be talking with objectivist Dagny Taggart, who wants to be sworn in with her hand on a copy of “Atlas Shrugged.”
Doug,
Prager makes an argument with merit. It is entirely on different grounds than your assertion that, “The Constitution imposes no requirement….“. Prager didn’t make a unconstitutional argument.
Doug wrote, “.. or the Manhattan Yellow Pages, who cares”
We do.
What I want to know is how does this stuff get written without anyone saying, “That looks like a strong claim, let’s look it up on Google.”
Prager is completely wrong that Ellison is the first person to not swear on the Bible! It only took Eugene Volokh (a strong conservative) a few minutes to find out that Herbert Hoover and Franklin Pierce refused to swear an oath (they simply affirmed). That Linda Leagle, governor of Hawaii, and the Governor of Vermont Madeleine Kunin, and dozens of Jewish Senators (including Lieberman) and Representatives, have all sworn on the Torah.
The Minnesota Monitor researched for a few more minutes and found that Roosevelt didn’t use a bible at his swearing in, Hayes didn’t either and Johnson used a missal (Catholic liturgical book).
And it doesn’t even take a trip to Google to remember that the Constitution says “The Senators and Representatives … [and other state and federal officials] shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall EVER be required ….” [emph. added.]
Maybe this is how Prager wants to take back the House and Senate for Republicans. Knowing that more of the Jewish members of Congress are Democrats he’ll propose we simply disqualify them.
“Prager is completely wrong that Ellison is the first person to not swear on the Bible! It only took Eugene Volokh (a strong conservative) a few minutes to find out that Herbert Hoover and Franklin Pierce refused to swear an oath (they simply affirmed). That Linda Leagle, governor of Hawaii, and the Governor of Vermont Madeleine Kunin, and dozens of Jewish Senators (including Lieberman) and Representatives, have all sworn on the Torah.”
That not true. Volokh’s argument included nothing about people swearing on a Torah. If Ellison wants to merely “affirm” let him do it. But if he is allowed to swear on the Koran, I – and other conservatives – will continue to protest it.
Maybe this is how Prager wants to take back the House and Senate for Republicans. Knowing that more of the Jewish members of Congress are Democrats he’ll propose we simply disqualify them.
Greg – Dennis Prager is a Jew.
Or, if you don’t believe that link, try this one.
Or, perhaps this one.
Sneaky, those Jews like Prager – Bible-thumping Christianist anti-Semites to the core.
“Volokh’s argument included nothing about people swearing on a Torah.”
Really? Didn’t I just read this from the link you just posted?
“I can’t speak to the common practices of Jewish officeholders, but some quick searches reveal that Linda Lingle, the Governor of Hawaii, was sworn in on the Tanakh (more or less the Old Testament); for the reasons I just mentioned, others would have been free to do the same, or to affirm if they preferred.”
I’m sure if you read more closely, you’ll find that Volokh did, in fact, say something about people swearing on Jewish books. Ctrl-F, along with Google is another tool that helps with this thing called RESEARCH.
And Mwalimu, I know that Prager is a Jew. He’s also one who clearly doesn’t know much about Jewish office-holders, like Linda Lingle or Debbie Wasserman Schultz, or Madeleine Kunin, governor of Vermont.
So apparently, to Prager, its really not the oath that matters here. After all, according to him, Jews elected to office have been swearing an oath over a book they don’t beleive in. Does that invalidate their oath? What’s the point to taking an oath on (over) any book at all if you don’t beleive in that book. It may as well by Mein Kampf.
Maybe we can convert Ellison to Christianity before January!
“If Ellison wants to merely “affirm” let him do it. But if he is allowed to swear on the Koran, I – and other conservatives – will continue to protest it.”
Go back to Volokh’s article, and read it from the paragraph starting:
“This leaves one milder form of Prager’s argument: Ellison shouldn’t have to swear on the Bible, but we don’t have to offer him a Koran, since he could affirm instead and affirmations don’t require any holy book.”
He, a conservative, pretty much eviscerates this argument as well as pointing out how Scalia and Thomas would reject it as well.
I know how to RESEARCH, Greg, don’t patronize me. YOU are the one who needs to do the research, as apparently you didn’t know that Prager was a Jew, otherwise you wouldn’t have suggested what you did about Democrat Jews in Congress – remember?
“Maybe this is how Prager wants to take back the House and Senate for Republicans. Knowing that more of the Jewish members of Congress are Democrats he’ll propose we simply disqualify them.”
“pretty much eviscerates this argument as well”
He did no such thing.
“Maybe we can convert Ellison to Christianity before January!”
Maybe we can convert you to reality before the 12th of never, tom.
“otherwise you wouldn’t have suggested what you did about Democrat Jews in Congress”
Are Republicans so irony-impaired? Well, I didn’t realize that the smileys above the comment spot were REQUIRED for Republicans to realize when someone was speaking tongue-in-cheek.
“He did no such thing.”
Seems pretty eviscerated to me.
You’ve repeated it. So, what do you disagree with?
Do I seem patronizing? I’m sorry, but I’ll repeat that it took Volokh minutes on Google to find that Linda Lingle, governor of Hawaii, swore on a Tanakh. (You told me the article didn’t mention anything about Jewish books.) It only takes a few minutes to find that other people have sworn. Not affirmed, but sworn. I’ve mentioned their names above. Volokh took another five minutes to find that “Justice Arthur Goldberg Swore His Oath of Office on the Hebrew Bible”
Five more minutes shows that Mazie Hirono, (D-Hawaii) will forgo a religious text because she is Buddhist.
And, if Prager knew someone with a subscription to Roll Call, he might have read this article which, I’m told, says that when the Representatives are sworn, there is no Bible in the room; the photos we see are taken post “swearing” and are simply publicity stills.
“Do I seem patronizing?”
No, you don’t “seem” patronizing. You ARE patronizing.
I’m currently reading Volokh, I don’t need you to do my research for me. Do your own.
Where is Prager getting his information from? Did he make this up, or what? He’s full of crap (as usual). The swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book.
An oath is not required either, as the Constitution in all instances includes the option of affirming rather than swearing and oath.
Why are so many Americans (especially the right wing pundit types) so ignorant of their own Constitution and traditions?
What happened to the principle of religious liberty? It’s not really liberty if one can be coerced into conforming to a belief one doesn’t share, is it? Prager’s outrage is simple bigotry, nothing more, nothing less. It’s disgusting and un-American.
you noe wat, i would like to take this moment to congratulate Kieth Ellison on his victory. We, the new generation of Muslims in North America are happy to see an inspiration, someone who is telling us to get involved in the democratic process of our respective countries. He swore himself on a Quran because that is what he holds dear, and thats what counts. theres nothing unAmerican about that, and i hate it how republicans always find new ways to make us and our values feel alien to American society. If someone can swear on a torah, or a buddhost scripture, or nothing at all, why cant we swear on the Quran