Religious Right up in Arms:Congressman to take oath on Koran

[romantico]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 3:44pm

Why is this a big deal? Don't these nuts understand that it won't mean anything if he doesn't believe the oath he is taken? I swear, I think sometimes they want us to be JUST LIKE THEM or move to another country!

Donald E. Wildmon
Founder and Chairman




November 28, 2006

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?

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!

Write your Representative and Senators Now!

If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.

Sincerely,



Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please print this and share with others.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 3:59pm

Actually, Dennis Prager, who is Jewish, wrote a very good article on this. If the Congressman were a Neo-Nazi, would we allow him to take the oath on "Mein Kampf"?

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 4:00pm

The fact that people can actually read that diatribe an not laugh at the total hypocrisy and absurdity and feel that it is a valid statement at all just boggles my mind.

Change is good, America. Taking an oath on the bible just because we've always done it that way is asinine.

"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."

Errr....says who? Obviously not my fellow Minnesotans who elected him knowing FULL WELL that he is Muslim and that he does not abide by the moral code of the Bible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is he not supposed to represent his constituents? So then it is not fair to assume that the constituents who elected did so with the understanding, and acceptance, that he would govern appropriately under his moral code.

Besides, as many who are supporting his decision have stated, the "oath" taken on the bible is merely for publicity purposes. The real oath is taken en masse before the start of the session. Who gives an almighty crap what hand he has his book on when they take the picture.


ETA:

"If the Congressman were a Neo-Nazi, would we allow him to take the oath on "Mein Kampf"?"

Would we? Probably not. Should we? Yes. Again, these are ELECTED OFFICIALS, if he is representing a constituency of fellow Neo-Nazis then it should and would be his constituents prerogative that he govern within that belief system. That is essentially the power of the democratic process and that's why IT WORKS. We need to allow people the right to choose candidates who they feel will best represent them and then actually allow these individuals to represent the people they were elected by to the fullest of their ability. If we don't, and tell people under which code they must govern, then why the bloody hell do we even vote anyway?!?!

Updated On: 12/1/06 at 04:00 PM

[romantico]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 4:05pm

But this man's spiritual beliefs are in the Koran. How can we FORCE him to uphold his oath of office and MAKE him swear on something he doesn't believe in. Do we actually want that? A politican to take a oath on something they don't believe in and then expect them to hold the office with integrity? Oh, and don't play that "Mein Kampf" card crap! Its like the same ole' gay marriage/ marrying your pet argument! Its SO paper thin. The fact is ITS NOT MEIN KAMPF its a Koran and the people would NOT have ELECTED a neo-Nazi so ask Dennis Prager to explain that!

Updated On: 12/1/06 at 04:05 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 4:22pm

the people would not have elected a neo-nazi

have you ever been to the south?

ever heard of david duke? robert byrd?

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 4:25pm

robert byrd...did he have an all nude public access show on Manhattan Cable?

I loved his spider web bikini!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 4:30pm

see, even doodle knows!

[Wildcard]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 4:30pm

Whatever happened to separation of church and state? I'm Christian but I don't think they should be swearing to the bible in the first place. As a public official, you serve people of different beliefs, not just your own. You do what is best for the public good, whether it agrees with your religious beliefs or not.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 4:32pm

they should be swearing on britney's stubbly vulva!

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 4:34pm

The point Prager is trying to make is one of individual vs country. The Congressman is upholding the values that the US was founded on, not on his own personal values.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 4:41pm

I don't think anyone has to put their hand on anything to "swear" an oath, and the presidential oath, "swearing" is optional as the given legal alternative uses the word "affirm". This I believe, is in the Constitution.

As for Donald Wildmon et al, they just haven't had their names in the paper much since the election and they are grasping at any straw at all to get some press. Since these folks have no real jobs or real life, it is all just PR.

Were I to take an oath of office, I would 'affirm' just for the hell of it and put my hand on some of the good parts that are in Peyton Place.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 4:47pm

"He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization."

And to not allow it undermines the Constitution. Someone please show me the law that political (or legal, for that matter) oathes must only be addressed with a Bible. Knowing the current behavior patterns of politicians today, perhaps we'd have better luck with the Koran or Torah anyway. Maybe the oath will actually stick.

"The Congressman is upholding the values that the US was founded on, not on his own personal values."

And the US was founded by victims of religious descrimination. The first two major issues the nation faced were religion and freedom.

"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."

Which is why they should use a copy of the Constitution instead of any religious book. We've seen over and over again how religion is used in this country as a platform for a personal agenda....George.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 4:53pm

The Constitution, being the secular document the secular Founding Fathers intended it to be, makes it very clar that the oath NOT be taken on a bible or any other religious document.

All photos of congressional oaths being taken on bibles are photo ops and nothing more.

Donald Wildmon and GothamPC are perverting the Constitution.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 4:59pm

In Court, atheist and non-christian witnesses are asked to affirm that their testimony is the "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?" The bible ritual is just to show that the person is giving a heartfelt answer.
The constitution specifically gives you the option of "affirming" your oath and DOES NOT require a bible or the phrase "So help me God." That is merely tradition. You could affirm the oath with your hand on a copy of USA Today and it would still be valid. It's just a prop. Window dressing.

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 5:25pm

I've never thoguht the bible to be anymore than a book of words.

Great meaning, but still a book.

I wouldn't press my hand on the bible and take an oath either. I'm not sure I'd choose anything.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 5:57pm

how about politicians swearing their oath on a copy of the Constitution??

this issue is vile and full of bigotry.

in a related matter, a girl I went to high school with (and just adores forwards) sent me a forward protesting the postage stamp with Arabic writing. this stamp embracing one of the many cultures in America was considered an insult to America. the forward listed all of the terror attacks caused by MUSLIMS and ended with 'send this to every patriotic American you know'

I was livid. I sent her an email that read, 'i love you, sweetie, but never send me another racist forward. muslims are not terrorists. terrorists are terrorists'

i'm freaking livid thinking about the audacity of some 'christian' 'patriotic' americans who believe this ****.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 6:36pm

Goth loses, being the first out of the box with the Hitler analogy!

And frankly, I'd much rather a neo-Nazi get sworn in with a copy of Mein Kampf, because it would be much more likely he'd never get re-elected than all the corrupt and evil public officials who trick the rubes like Donald Wildmon and Goth by pledging over the bible!

And by the way, which of the 32 bibles IS it that is the official bible of the founding fathers anyway?

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 6:42pm

You mean KJV? NIV? etc..

I grew up with NIV. My best friend grew up with KJV. He said he couldn't understand a word for the NIV... which I didn't understand, but oh well.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 6:49pm

"Goth loses, being the first out of the box with the Hitler analogy!"

I know it's hard for you to comprehend material other than Inches Magazine, but I can't take credit for the Hitler analogy. The first out of the box would have been Dennis Prager.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 6:59pm

where DID I put that popcorn eating smiley??

::pulls up a front row seat::

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 7:01pm

*pulls up a seat next to Jerby and reaches for the popcorn*

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 7:10pm

Why would you want someone affirming to a book he does not believe in to start with?

It is pretty pathetic when this is the best the Christian Right can get all upset about.

And, for the record, isn't Neo-Nazism a political movement, not a religious one, so the analogy does not make sense anyway?

Have some popcorn all.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 7:13pm

Inches magazine is your fantasy not mine, Goth, you heterosexual Rapture-believing Broadway-musical lover. My taste in men is decidedly less mainstream than yours, but I'd never criticize your familiarity with Inches.

And you invoked the Hitler analogy in this thread. But then, you would.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 7:13pm

I'll have mine without butter, please.

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 11:50pm

Extra butter here.

I actually really like Jerby's suggestion of the Constitution.