PDA

View Full Version : Taking That Oath


Black Man
12-11-2006, 02:01 PM
America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_co ngressman_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)

snapple
12-11-2006, 05:14 PM
they should make him do that, whats to stop him from lying if he doesn't beleive in it?

Visionz
12-11-2006, 06:50 PM
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. This statement right here shows the writer of this article to be a fuckin idiot subject idiotic hyperbole. Of course, its didn't take that long to show it. That happened when he compared mein kampf to the Quran.

Black Man
12-11-2006, 07:02 PM
This statement right here shows the writer of this article to be a fuckin idiot subject idiotic hyperbole. Of course, its didn't take that long to show it. That happened when he compared mein kampf to the Quran.

How so?

I don't think the author compared the mein kampf to the quran, and if he did what's wrong with that?

Visionz
12-11-2006, 07:07 PM
A foundation of hatred and a foundation of love for all of humankind aren't comparable, yet this guy chooses to compare them. By this extension of thought, a muslim would be comparable to a rascist nazi.


What's your purpose in bringin this up in a thread anyways?

Black Man
12-11-2006, 07:17 PM
A foundation of hatred and a foundation of love for all of humankind aren't comparable, yet this guy chooses to compare them. By this extension of thought, a muslim would be comparable to a rascist nazi.


What's your purpose in bringin this up in a thread anyways?

Love and Hate can be compared, and the author from what I read didn't compare the two books that you speak of. He replaced the bible with books that other people hold as sacred, holy, precious, important, etc. etc. for taking an oath.

Your personal opinion of whats hate and whats love is of no concern according to the quran, for you are not ALLAH and he ALLAH is the only judge.

A muslim can be compared to a nazi.

The purpose of this is to "Know The Ledge"

Visionz
12-11-2006, 07:25 PM
What makes you assume they're my own personal oppinions? The same book that tells you that Allah is the only judge will also tell you the difference between love and hate. No one in their right mind thinks the Nazi's where submitting to God's will.

Black Man
12-11-2006, 08:50 PM
What makes you assume they're my own personal oppinions? The same book that tells you that Allah is the only judge will also tell you the difference between love and hate. No one in their right mind thinks the Nazi's where submitting to God's will.

They were submitting to God's will.

Visionz
12-12-2006, 08:21 AM
They were submitting to God's will.


The purpose of this is to "Know The Ledge"

.