The horror....the horror!

[Big Mac]

November 29, 2006

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.

A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

What book will America base it's values on, the Bible or the Koran?

Dear Samuel,

Please take a moment to read the following TownHall.com column by Dennis Prager, who is a Jew. After reading the column, take the suggest action at the bottom of this email. After you have read it, please forward it to your friends and family.

America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
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. (End Commentary)

Take Action

1. Send an email asking your U.S. Representative and Senators to pass a law making the Bible the book used in the swearing-in ceremony of Representatives and Senators.

2. Forward this email to your friends and family today!

Why do they call them Islamists? They do realize that's what the word Muslim is for, right? Tit for tat, I"m sure they wouldn't like the moniker of "Christianists" if they were the ones on the receiving end.

And why do you have to swear on any book? I didn't swear on a bible when I enlisted in the military and I was allowed not to say "God" quite willingly if I chose so. The 1st amendment protects everyone from saying and believing in what they feel. I am offended at the ignorance here. So should you, this is a disgusting attempt to inject Right-wing propaganda into our kids minds saying that the only book that is valid is the bible!

[McQ]

What a fucking bunch of crap that is. Why not swear on the Sunday comics, or the current copy of Playboy Magazine?

These dimwits who think America is a christian nation are not fit to clean my toilet.





On second thought, maybe that is what they are fit for.



I just finished a long talk with one of my sons about this issue of what "religion" America is or isn't. He got a whole new view that wasn't being taught in school.

[Jassman]

This Dennis Prager guy is an idiot. Watch Sam Harris destroy him in an email debate:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/debate-with-dennis-prager/

[Tom62]

I would swear my oath on the Necronomicon of the mad Arab Abdul Alhazred, should I ever find a copy of it. The gods descriped in that book are more powerful than the gods of the christians, jews and moslims.

"Nor is it to be thought that man is either the oldest or the last of earth's masters, or that the common bulk of life and substances walks alone. The Old Ones were, the Old Ones are, and the Old Ones shall be. Not in the spaces we know, but between them, They walk serene and primal, undimensioned and to us unseen. Yog-Sothoth knows the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate. Past, present, future, all are one in Yog-Sothoth. He knows where the Old Ones broke through of old, and where They shall break through again. He knows where They have trod earth's fields, and where They still tread them, and why no one can behold Them as They tread. By Their smell can men somtimes know them near, but of Their semblance can no man know, saving only in the features of those They have begotten on mankind; and of those are there many sorts, differing in likeness from man's truest eidolon to that shape without sight or substance which is Them. They walk unseen and foul in lonely places where the Words have been spoken and the Rites howled through at their Seasons. The wind gibbers with Their voices, and the earth mutters with Their consciousness. They bend the forest and crush the city, yet may not forest or city behold the hand that smites. Kadath in the cold waste hath known Them, and what man knows Kadath? The ice desert of the South and the sunken isles of Ocean hold stones where Their seal is engraven, but who hath seen the deep frozen city or the sealed tower long garlanded with seaweed and barnacles? Great Cthulhu is Their cousin, yet can he spy Them only dimly. Iä! Shub-Niggurath! As a foulness shall ye know Them. Their hand is at your throats, yet ye see Them not; and Their habitation is even one with your guarded threshold. Yog-Sothoth is the key to the gate, whereby the spheres meet. Man rules now where They ruled once; They shall soon rule where man rules now. After summer is winter, and after winter summer. They wait patient and potent, for here shall They reign again."

[MikeyV]

Sorry I'm so late to this discussion, but one of the wisest things to be said in this whole stupid debacle actually cam from that asshat, Tom Tancredo. I'm paraphrasing here, but he said "I don't care what he swears on, as long as he upholds the Constitution". Wise words from a fundie. Whodathunkit.

[donkeyhoty]

Can you swear on a copy of "Juggs"?

[Court]

If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

Right on track with mimicking George Bush senior, in his anti-atheist bullshit remark about citizenship.

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?

Okay, I kind of agree. Give me a minute before you stone me to explain. First of all, I'm fairly certain this person is ignorant about the fact that you can refuse to swear on the bible, and just hold your hand up when you take your oath. Few take this option, I'm sure, so it's not surprising the author is ignorant of it.
So here's why I agree: Why the Koran? This debate is a sign that we DO need to change the bible-swearing policy, but not to include MORE inane holy books, to disclude the one we have now. There's absolutely no reason why Christian congressmen can't take their oaths on their word alone. But if you start letting in certain holy books, you're going to run into a problem with the multiplicity. Who decides which ones are okay? Who decides WHICH religions to disclude? The simplest solution is the one that will never happen (at least, right now never): get rid of the bible in the oath swearing. Just make is secular. It's not even being "mean" to Christianity, it's just denying them special treatment.

[Marke]

If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

Right on track with mimicking George Bush senior, in his anti-atheist bullshit remark about citizenship.

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?

Okay, I kind of agree. Give me a minute before you stone me to explain. First of all, I'm fairly certain this person is ignorant about the fact that you can refuse to swear on the bible, and just hold your hand up when you take your oath. Few take this option, I'm sure, so it's not surprising the author is ignorant of it.
So here's why I agree: Why the Koran? This debate is a sign that we DO need to change the bible-swearing policy, but not to include MORE inane holy books, to disclude the one we have now. There's absolutely no reason why Christian congressmen can't take their oaths on their word alone. But if you start letting in certain holy books, you're going to run into a problem with the multiplicity. Who decides which ones are okay? Who decides WHICH religions to disclude? The simplest solution is the one that will never happen (at least, right now never): get rid of the bible in the oath swearing. Just make is secular. It's not even being "mean" to Christianity, it's just denying them special treatment.

as usual, good point Cort, if you have to swear on a "holy book" to keep your word then  you can't be trusted anyway.