Reply With QuoteIt's repulsive that:
1) There are people who think like this fool
and
2) He actually gets paid to offer his opinions to the public
.......What in the world is wrong with this man?!?!?!?!?! See this is why most of the world hates America. Because of people like him!
I had the misfortune of reading a TownHall article today. One of their pundits, Dennis Prager, is up in arms b/c he says no one has the right to deviate from American's established culture of Christianity & that this is nothing more than a vigilante act of "multi-culturalist activism!"
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/D...es_his_oath_on
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.
The tree of man was never quiet:
Then 'twas the Roman, now 'tis I.
- A. E. Housman
It's repulsive that:
1) There are people who think like this fool
and
2) He actually gets paid to offer his opinions to the public
I cant imagine this person getting much cooperation by desecrating the institution he was elected to participate in.
Throughout the world muslims persecute all other religions and this muslim wants our cultural institutions to just step aside and let him reform them for muslims. What ever happened to assimilation? What ever happened to patriotism, loyalty and love of country?
If a chinese communist is elected will they be allowed to swear his oak to Moas red book or Marx's
If a german fascist gets elected can he be allowed to swear his oath to Mein Kampf
If an african american rapper gets elected can they swear their oak to "I like big butts"
The pope is right Western culture has been inclusive enough of Muslims lets let Islam show its goodwill to christianity for awhile.
yes let someone take an oak on a book whose allegiance is to Islam and not the US
The Bible atleast has Jesus saying to render unto Caeser what is Ceasar and to god what is god. The very origins of separation of church and state.
The Koran has no separation or respect for other religions or the choice of not having a religion and the state.
yes let someone take an oak on a book that espouses to kill all infidels to which many muslims interpret all of western culture, jews, atheists, agnostics, christians, buddhists, native indians....anyone that doesnt submit to Islam is to be put to death.
Thats the book you want someone to take an oak of patriotism to our country
Multicultural liberal idiots
Just secularize the oath of office and get rid of all the books. Then all the whiny, namby-pamby religious zealots won't have anything to complain about.
The path is clear
Though no eyes can see
The course laid down long before.
And so with gods and men
The sheep remain inside their pen,
Though many times they've seen the way to leave.
The Koran and the teachings of Islam are not what the USA stands for so he should not be allowed otherwise to take office. The bible or the highway. Islams goal is global domination through Islam and nothing more.
There should be a fire storm over this and the voices who wish to bend to Islam should go into an Islamic state and live if you do not mind it so much.
Last edited by LHardy; December 6th, 2006 at 08:51 AM.
False, as usual. There is no stipulation - anywhere - that incoming members of Congress take their oaths on a Bible. Many choose to do so because of the value they place on their Christian faith, and that's their right and priviledge, but it's not a requirement. The only requirement is an oath to the Constitution of the United States.Originally Posted by LHardy
Treachery made a monster out of me
I should damn well hope so. What's the point in an oath if you're not putting your hand on something you believe in?
Sheesh, this is a pretty silly line of thinking.
"At a minimum, a head of state should have a head."- Vladimir Putin
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
I think this pretty much speaks for itself.
"At a minimum, a head of state should have a head."- Vladimir Putin
His rights are not being violated in this case.
It is a matter of ceremony for office.
Part and parcel to the fabric of the United States of America.
It is the commitment to Freedom, within the pages of the bible, which holds no greater comparison to our Constitution and Freedoms.
The Koran demands Islamic rule and Sharia Law. It is in direct opposition to the Constitution.
It is because of this opposition that this must not be allowed.
It is the obligation of those who serve under the Constitution of the United States of American that the following must occur in order to hold your elected or otherwise obtained office.
The Bible— From Coronations to InaugurationsThe oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:
"I, ____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
One element of the swearing-in ceremony not required by the Constitution is the ritual of the President placing his left hand on the Bible and raising his right hand toward heaven. The practice of taking oaths upon Bibles stemmed from English and American colonial history. Bibles were used in the coronations of Britain's kings and queens and in the administration of oaths in civil and ecclesiastical courts.63
Just before George Washington's swearing-in on the balcony at the Federal Hall in New York City, Chief Justice of the New York state judiciary, Chancellor Robert R. Livingston, who would administer the oath, raised the question, "would legitimacy be lacking if the oath was administered without a Bible?"64 A search ensued. When no Bible could be found in the building, the inquiry spread to St. John's Masonic Lodge No. 1, a few blocks away on Wall Street. A Bible secured, the ceremony proceeded as scheduled.
Not every swearing-in ceremony has included a Bible, although there is strong evidence that a Bible has been present in the proceedings since James Buchanan's inauguration in 1857. The exception is Theodore Roosevelt in 1901, when he was hastily sworn in after William McKinley died.65
The image of a Bible barely visible through a dimly lit Vermont farmhouse would set the stage for the next unexpected swearing-in ceremony and "fire" the nation's imagination.
http://www.archives.gov/publications...nsition-1.html
With all that said,given past practice and the matter of religious separation removal of any religious ceremony should be done.
You are required only to up hold the Constitution and the Laws of the United States of America.
Nowhere within the Constitution are you required a religious ceremony to take the oath of office.
I could not say this stronger.
Islam, that which is the Koran, is not in keeping with the Constitution of the United States of America and should not be allowed.
LHardy, Im with you on this one. Islam & Sharia Law are contrary to US constitution. They are in conflict....and you dont want a tyrant claiming their oath to the Koran over rode their oath to the constitution.
Thats paving the way for being a traitor to our country and heresy.
Just answer this question: Does it make sense for a man to swear on a bible, while he doesn't believe in its teachings? It would be as if he had his fingers crossed behind his back - it would mean nothing!
Or, are you saying that those who do not follow the teachings of the Bible should not be allowed to hold public office?
Im saying he is free to refuse the bible and swear only to the constitution but we the people of the United States are not about to start admitting that US law is based on the principles of the Koran in equal weight to the principles of the Bible.
The Bible has been the root of western civilization for 2000 years since Empiror Constantine recognized Christianity. We are not about to start a hundred years war that Europe endured fighting between catholics and protestants...by allowing politically correct liberals to say that its now discriminatory to allow a man to take an oath on the Koran and not have equal weight in all US legislation founded in both the Bible and the Koran.
There is absolutely no way the US constitution, western values, western civilization, christianity and judaism can be equally respected with the Koran in legislating the future of western civilization. To do so is re-igniting a religious war between christianity, judaism and islam.
A war to which their is no counterpart in any Islamic country towards respect for christian or jewish minorities. This I understand. I respect the christian and jewish faiths....more than people give me credit. I disagree with the politics of faith....not the expression of faith.
Not surprising that you don't support the constitution of this country.
"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, "career" or "political", can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath of support to the Constitution. This implies that the requirement of an oath, even presumably one taken "So help me God" (not a part of the presidential oath, the only one spelled out in the Constitution, but traditionally almost always added to it), does not imply any requirement by those so sworn to accept a particular religion or a particular doctrine.
The clause is cited by advocates of separation of church and state as an example of "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution of avoiding any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices. This is important as this clause represents the words of the original Framers, even prior to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions