Congressman (Ellison) faulted for (swearing on) Quran at oath

[deadparrot]

WASHINGTON - Keith Ellison, who will become the first Muslim member of Congress next month, has offended some conservatives with his plan to use the Quran during his ceremonial swearing-in. The decision by Ellison, D-Minn., to use the Muslim holy book for the ceremony instead of the Bible triggered an angry column by Dennis Prager on the Web site Townhall.com this week.

Headlined, "America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on," Prager argued that using the Quran for the ceremony "undermines American civilization."

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

Conservative bloggers have picked up the criticism and run with it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061202/ap_on_go_co/ellison_quran

[The Watchman]

1. I will harken back..

and refur to the wisdom of an old russian proverb:

Tough Shitski.


Be Vigilant.

[Kellyiswise]

31. And what about the HI Congresswoman swearing on the Torah?

Did Prager write about this incident?

[sugapablo]

42. No...

Nor did he complaign about Judge Ginsburg swearing on the Tanach (Torah, Prophets, Writings), as he felt they were simply "parts of the Christian Bible".

I'm an Atheist. I wonder how he'd feel if I asked to swear on a copy of the Hobbit. ;)

[FVZA_Colonel]

61. Or better yet, On the Origin of Species.

(The idea of doing that actually came from another poster on this site, who also said that they were an athiest).

[Bucky]

71. I would probably take the oath on a collection of Molly Ivins essays

Anyone unwilling to do that is an atheist in my book

[JohnLocke]

62. It was actually the governor (A Republican)

Linda Lingle, a Republican

[truthisfreedom]

2. weird.

[Greeby]

4. I'm suprised the right-wing filth didn't go all out after he won the primary

Guess they were saving their slime

[CatholicEdHead]

43. Actually his district (MN-5) is a very, very safe DFL seat

It was the DFLer or nobody. The Republican canidiate really has no chance. The real race is the primary in MN-5, as the inner city Minneapolis will got go Republican anytime soon.

[Thor_MN]

58. filth, not fifth - I read it wrong the first time too

[Kutjara]

3. Why the hell do they swear on the Bible anyway?

Is "separation of Church and State" so difficult to understand?

[Toots]

37. They don't

Swearing in is done by raising the right hand and repeating the oath of office. If one wishes to use a book for show or whatever reasons they are allowed to do so.

[dogfacedboy]

50. You are correct. There is no "Holy Book Requirement". n/t

[benny05]

5. This has been reported a number of times here

and other places.

Please, no more. Otherwise, it could mean the Freepers are doing a good job of keeping this out. No offense to the poster, but perhaps the poster hadn't looked at the DU LBN or other threads in the past 48 hours, nor at the DK.

[AlamoDemoc]

8. you made an excellent point....Duers should not fall for this nuisance

[deadparrot]

12. This hasn't been posted in LBN yet,

it's from a legitimate source, and it's less than twelve hours old. It meets all criteria for posting in LBN.

[Redstone]

6. Like I said before, just another molehill for the rightwingers to make a mounain of;

because they just can't stand to have a day when they're not outraged about something.

I guess they feel that their boring, pointless lives are nothing without a daily outrage.

Redstone

[eleny]

10. they're so easily threatened

[Redstone]

13. What a bunch of weenies. Let's you and me go fight the War On Christmas!

That'll get them all riled up.

Redstone

[eleny]

18. locked 'n loaded, baby!

[Counciltucky]

7. Separation of church and state!

Hey, if it's the book that Keith Ellison looks to, it should be the book he swears on. As a Christian, it would have more of an effect on me if I swore on the Bible than on the Quran, and conversely, it'd have more of an effect on Ellison if he swore on the Quran. Respect his religion (oh wait ... we're talking Republicans here ... they don't respect non-Christian religion).

[lindisfarne]

24. Republicans as a party don't respect ANY religion; they just use religion for their own purposes. nt

[polmaven]

54. I take exception to that!

Have you never heard of that ancient and beloved religion Republinsanity?????:shrug:

[lastliberalintexas]

72. I take exception too

The republican God is Money, and they are as fervent in their religiosity as any fundy Christian or Muslim could ever wish to be.

[Joe Bacon]

9. Dennis the Bigot forgot about this

Article VI, Clause 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Shut up Dennis.

[Maraya1969]

20. Thanks for this. I think I'll send it to him.

[Joe Bacon]

74. Fat chance that bigot will read it

Prager bullshits all the time on the radio about being a devout Orthodox Jew, yet the vilest trash comes out of his mouth about blacks and latinos. He's just like his pals Bernie Goldberg and Michael Medved, a Jew with Nazi principles. If we were back in 1940, these three stooges would be standing with Charles Lindbergh at America First Rallies in support of Hitler.

I am an Orthodox Jew and I detest these scumbags. It's sad to see that the spirit of Judah Benjamin is alive and well.

[Hekate]

33. "Oath or affirmation" refers to those who cannot or will not swear "by God"...

The Constitution respects matters of conscience in this regard, both in courts of law and when taking oaths of office.

In either case, the Founders recognized the rights of those whose religion forbids them to take an oath ("Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain") -- I think Jehovah's Witnesses and Quakers both fall into this category -- as well as agnostics and atheists for whom an oath on the Bible would be meaningless. For all such people, an affirmation of their personal word has been considered sufficient for over 200 years.

The University of California has required a signed loyalty oath of employees since the days of Joseph McCarthy. I had to sign one, though it left a bad taste in my mouth. But during my time in the Labor Relations office there were two new hires who refused to sign on religous grounds, and in both cases they were let off the hook.

Hekate

[Ravy]

11. Sounds like the conservatives want a government endorsement of religion.

How unAmerican of them.

[0rganism]

14. not just religion -- one SPECIFIC religion

it's gotta be Christianity or nothing for them, even the ones who aren't Christian. :shrug:

[Ravy]

15. I really think it is nothing for them.

Even the ones that profess to be Christians.

[fujiyama]

16. America's values lie (or should lie) on the fuckin Constitution!

A secular document...

My question is, what would happen if a *gasp* atheist took the oath (maybe some have - I'm not familiar).

Prager is a real piece of shit and I love how that atheist scientist ripped him apart recently. Reading religious fundamentalists' views on AIDS and other diseases is making me one incredibly pissed off atheist.

[lindisfarne]

25. Or an evolutionist: they could swear on Evolution of the species. n/t

[ninkasi]

17. Prager is an idiot

In the first place, it's unconstitutional to require a religious oath to serve federal offices. In the second place, I'd expect an oath given on whatever was sacred to the person taking the oath to be a more meaningful one that one taken on a book the person didn't hold sacred. These conservative morons keep talking about America being founded on the bible, and it wasn't. It was specifically founded on the power of the people, and the guiding principles are found in the Constitution.

Maybe Prager needs to read a bit more history, and pay special attention to the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Paine, and others. The Founding Fathers would have been quick to explain the difference in a country run by the consent of the governed, rather than run according to the bible. Do they always have to be outraged at everything that isn't the way they think it should be? Pathetic.

[LibDemAlways]

19. I wonder if Prager would voice the same objection if

Mitt Romney wanted to take an oath of office on the Book of Mormon.

What if Tom Cruise ran for something and wanted to swear on Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard?

Would Prager be making a public stink about it? I doubt it.

This is nothing more than thinly disguised anti-Muslim propaganda perpetrated by an ass to stir up wingnuts.

[fujiyama]

21. I think he would

Don't believe for a second that Prager and his ilk only despise Muslims. If they hate anyone more, it's "pagans and Atheists".

I'm not sure where either Mormonism or Scientology fall in, as they are simply bizarre cults (but then again I view them all as bizarre cults with Christianity and Islam being much greater and destructive cults).

[Solon]

26. To people like Prager...

Romney is a Non-Christian who defiles Christ's name, and Tom Cruise follows the Anti-Christ. Actually, if you get specific, EVERYONE but Prager and his followers are "duped" by the Anti-Christ or Satan, they literally believe that. So, yeah, they would condemn that type of stuff. Not to say I side with them, they are fruitcakes, unfortunately, very DANGEROUS fruitcakes.

[donheld]

22. Would they make an atheist swear on the bible?

May as well have the Xtian swear on the L. L. Bean catalog.

[Hekate]

34. Affirmation of one's personal word has been considered sufficient for over 200 years

See my post above.

The Founders covered that -- there are Christians who swear no oaths because they believe to do so violates the commandment against taking the name of the Lord in vain. In addition, the ability to "affirm" covers atheists and agnostics.

We are living through evil times.

Hekate

[LiberalFighter]

65. I remember when we had Deputy Registrars for Voter Registration

That the individual had the option of swearing they were telling the truth or affirming they were telling the truth. There was at least one that would not swear.

[Miss Chybil]

48. Has there ever been an openly atheist American politician?

As for the original topic, I would think if someone felt swearing on one's most "holy" document to be a demonstration of one's devotion to his, or her, duties, someone would be inclined to want one to swear on a book he, or she, actually believed was holy.

[zreosumgame]

23. do a search this is a lie

none of them swear on ANY book during that ceremony, the whole basis of it is a lie.

[Scurrilous]

27. Yep...

Right-Wing Radio Host Fabricates Controversy To Attack First Muslim Congressman

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2835418

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Has anyone told Ellison they don't use a book?

I'm trying to work out whether an announcement from him that there's no book involved anyway would make the right wing nutters looks stupid, or if they could make it look as if Ellison was backing down.

[DearAbby]

28. ahem...the Quran..the Bible...This month's issue Guns & Weapons

"America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on," Prager argued that using the Quran for the ceremony "undermines American civilization."

I do recall something about a religious test...ahem

They had a poll on AOL earlier today, "Were you offended by Ellison taking his oath of office on the Quran?" the majority of those idiots said "YES, they were offended"

How in the hell does it "undermine American civilization?" :shrug:

[dogfacedboy]

52. It undermines the Malcontent Minority's false sense of

superiority and validity, and that's why they can't stand it. It goes against all of their ridiculous ways of "thinking" with regards to authoritarianism.
I am extremely grateful that most of these asshats are old, and will be dying off over the next 20 years. Hopefully, their retarded ideologies will die off with them.

[GreatPirateRoberts]

29. Why

Do they swear their oath on any mythological book? Why not just have them use "Alice in Wonderland?"

[TomClash]

30. What would Jesus do? nt

[WePurrsevere]

36. Jesus wouldn't swear on anything.... Matt. 5:34-7 "But I tell you, Do not swear at all

either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."

Taking an oath on any religious book is not required by the Constitution (and I believe a very good argument could e made that it is actually unconstitutional to require it). As is seen above it is also against the teachings of the person many of these wingnuts say they follow. The more I read coming from these people's mouths the more I can't help but wonder if my husband and I were brought up in unusual Christian churches and families (Methodist & Episcopal) since we actually learned what the Bible and Jesus "said" (and even remember most of it years after being away from it).

Prager and other's like him should seriously consider actually reading and learning the Constitution and what the Bible says Jesus actually taught.

[IndianaGreen]

41. In today's world, Jesus would be a prisoner at Guantanamo

and he would be subjected to daily water boarding.

[AngryOldDem]

45. No, he wouldn't make it that far

He would have been crucified ten times over by now.

[IndianaGreen]

47. Senator Brownback would have told Jesus "welcome to my church."

Jesus would have responded to Brownback in the same way as Obama did, this is my church too.

Obama welcomed warmly by evangelical Christians

Obama spoke extensively about the debate of abstinence versus condoms.

"I don't think we can deny that there is a moral and spiritual component to prevention," Obama said. During recent travels through Africa, "again and again I heard stories of men and women contracting HIV because sex was no longer part of a sacred covenant, but a mechanical physical act . . .

"Having said that, I also believe that we cannot ignore that abstinence and fidelity may too often be the ideal and not the reality. If condoms and potentially microbicides can prevent millions of deaths, they should be made more widely available."

The standing ovation given Obama was longer and louder than that received by either Warren or Brownback.

The message clearly resonated.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/16144789.htm

[goforit]

53. Or he could've died "accidently" in a convenient airplane crash.

[Larry Ogg]

35. Swearing an oath in Gods name is warned against in the bible.

Reason given is that you bring God into it when you swear in Gods name to tell the truth, make a promise or take an oath you are saying God endorses your word, so there for your word is good. But when you then lie and deceive people after swearing to God you are also lying to and deceiving God and the lie is then a far more greater sin and so is the penalty. In the real world though as many of us know, some if not most politicians have a problem with keeping there word, and when I see them swearing an oath on the bible, I see it as a shameful charade of faithless pageantry and ritual designed to deceive the God fearing faithful and the just. I see too many who wrap them selves in our country’s flag, professing there faith while dragging us all into a hellish abyss for there own sport and enrichment. If a man or woman of different faith takes an oath or makes a promise and holds true to there oaths and fulfills there promises it is because they are good to there word, and it is not the manner of pageantry, ritual or faith that binds them too there word, it is there character, and that is what should concern us more.

[Mountainman]

38. They are a bunch of right wing bigots. Let them go crawl back under their rocks.

Screw them. They have their few minutes of fake rage then they have to find another thing to get pissed off about. They don't deserve the time of day.

[Onlooker]

39. What would be the point of having a Muslim swear an oath on the Bible?

From a right-wing point of view, it would seem to me you'd rather have a guy you don't trust swear on a bible he claims to believe in than one that is not part of his religion.

[LiberalFighter]

66. Correct... better for a person swearing on a book they would offend

then on one they despised.

Just as it would be pointless for "christian" to swear on the Torah or Roman Catholic bible. And for a Roman Catholic to swear on the KJV or whatever version that is not published for catholics.

They should ask themselves what bible was used for catholic Supreme Court Justices? And if they used so called christian bible what would their priest say about that?

[IndianaGreen]

40. Would they force a Jew to take the oath on a Christian Bible?

Yes, they would, for the American rightwing is inherently anti-Semitic as they are Islamophobic.

[AngryOldDem]

44. "Undermines American civilization"???

Why does that strike me as an oxymoron, especially when we consider what's happened here over the past six years?

I find his whole rant repellent, especially "America is interested in only one book, the Bible." I'm sure that would come as surprise news to the Founders.

[NoodleyAppendage]

46. If by "American civilization," he means racist, bigoted, dumbass numbnuts...then o.k.

Anything that can undermine a Repuke's idea of "American civilization" would be fine by me.

J

[kestrel91316]

49. I bet he'd REALLY blow a gasket if some pagan Representative

wanted to swear an oath on their own Book of Shadows!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[geek tragedy]

51. To be fair, most conservative bloggers think

that Prager is full of shit on this one.

[w4rma]

55. The Republicans are led from the top down. Those few bloggers, if that is true, have no say

whatsoever in what the Republican leadership does.

And, judging from their past zealous loyalty, they don't care.

[OzarkDem]

56. There is no "official" Bible for the US

from the linked article

"Asked if it would be a problem for a Jewish lawmaker to take the oath on a Bible that included only the Old Testament, Prager responded, "Yes, it would," because he said the point is to honor the "Bible of this country."

Funny, I don't remember anything about an official Bible for the US in the Constitution.

[BadgerKid]

57. This "Jesus Envy" really cheeses me off

because last time I looked there was more than one religion in the world. I have even known Xians from the same family who held different beliefs of who/what god is. It is kind of amazing to me that the most vocal people think they speak for the entire crowd.

[Behind the Aegis]

59. From the ADL

ADL Statement on Dennis Prager's Attack On Muslim Congressman for Taking Oath of Office on Koran


New York, NY, December 1, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued the following statement in response to Dennis Prager’s November 28 online column, “America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on,” where he said that the first Muslim elected to Congress should not be permitted to take his oath of office on a Koran:

Dennis Prager’s argument that Representative-Elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, should not be permitted to take his oath of office on a Koran is, intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American.

Prager is flat-out wrong when he asserts that Representative Ellison’s use of a Koran would be “damaging to the fabric of American civilization.” To the contrary, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that, “no religious test shall ever be required” to hold public office in America. Members of Congress, like all Americans, should be free to observe their own religious practices without government interference or coercion.

Prager’s patriotic prattling is misinformed on the facts, too. No Member of Congress is officially sworn in with a Bible. Under House rules, the official swearing-in ceremony is done in the House chambers, with the Speaker of the House administering the oath of office en masse. No Bibles or other holy books are used at all. Members may, if they choose, also have a private ceremony with family and friends. At these unofficial ceremonies, Members frequently solemnize the event by taking an oath while holding a personal family Bible.

more...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

64. HAH! Let them argue that the ADL are a bunch of America-hating Muslim-loving commies!

I'd LOVE to see them do that!

[FVZA_Colonel]

69. That would just be... so delicious, wouldn't it?

I am sure, though, that someone, somewhere, will actually say that.

[TankLV]

60. This has been posted many times before.

This is NOT "breaking news".

[mcscajun]

63. How presumptuous, bigoted, and ridiculous.

Amazing to find all of that in one columnist? Apparently not.

He presumes to speak for all of America? Sorry, Mr. Prager; you do not. He's only in an uproar because there will be a Muslim in Congress, and that makes his bigoted blood boil. It's ridiculous to suggest that anyone take an oath on a book outside of their own belief system, or else what has happened to the "oath" itself? An oath is a statement sworn to or on what one deems sacred. It is as ridiculous to suggest that a Muslim swear on a Bible as it would be for a devout Christian to swear on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

As many have pointed out, there is no religious test required of prospective Congressional Representatives, Senators, or indeed, the President; at least, that's the way it reads in the only document that should be sacred to everyone in this country: The US Constitution.

PS: If I ever take public office anywhere and have to swear an oath, I'll request a red leatherette-bound copy of LOTR. :evilgrin:

[LiberalFighter]

67. Might be time to get my old copy of Penthouse out and swear on that

[JI7]

68. Prager is a scumbag and so is anyone else making this a problem

fuck every single one of them. bunch of jackasses are exactly like the Islamic Extremists they continually condemn.

[Guaranteed]

70. Tell them to SHUT THE FUCK UP. I'm sick of this. DONE with this.

Shut the FUCK up, you FUCKING BIGOTS.

[TheBaldyMan]

73. Dumb, dumb, dumb - they expect him to swear on a bible?

How would the numbnut feel if he was expected to be sworn in to office using a torah or baghavad gita?

Moslems swear on a koran, it's the holy book of islam. Christians use the bible.

Here's a thought do catholics and protestants use different versions of the bible.

Does the RW nut expect catholics to use the KJV?