[Regarding Keith Ellison, the first Muslim Congressman, and his request to be sworn in on the Qur'an, not the Bible]
He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
[....]
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.
33 comments
Christ told you not to swear by things because you had no power over any of them. He even brought up that the hairs on your head aren't yours, so you can't even swear by those. Why should anyone then swear by the bible? Isn't that supposed to be far more (my) precious(sssss) than a single strand of your hair?
Andif you need people swearing by things, have them swear by things they hold dear. This reminds me of an old comic in which an Arab betrays another to some Americans (Really old, from far before 9-11) and the betrayed Arab looks up and says: "How could you do this? You swore on the Qur'an!"
Do you know what the American answered?
"Yes, but he isn't muslim."
The lesson you should learn from this? People aren't afraid to betray what they do not hold dear when there is something to gain from doing so.
Well, you could have him swear on a Bible, but then when he broke his oath what could you do about it?
Anyway, surely this must have come up before? In the UK this whole issue was resolved over a 100 years ago. (Charles Bradlaugh, look him up).
If everyone should swear on the same book, then I would suggest "THE PET GOAT". It's neutral and even simpleton fundamentalists can understand it.
BTW: I would like to say here and now that I am in now way related to Dennis Prager except in the fact that we both dangle from the same limb of the Homo sapiens tree.
Well, let´s say that, as a Catholic, I will not swear under the KJV, is it that correct?. Besides, if he´s not a Christian or a Jewish, you can´t be sure he will be faithfull, because it´s not a book who has a significant value to him.
Dennis, you're stupid. There I feel better already. Where were we? Oh yeah, swearing on the Bible, Matilde brings up an interesting question about which version to use. So by extension what do members of other religions use, Bhuddists, Taoists, Pastafarians, Wiccans, Animists? How about Atheists? (no religion, can they use a voter's registration list?)
OMG...look at the comments, there is an evangelical Christian actually defends the man's right to swear on the Qu'ran, and states that America is NOT a theocracy! Something is desperately wrong with the evangelical community!
He is not SUBSTITUTING the Koran for the bible. There is no requirement for any US official to swear on any book. When they do, it's because they've brought their own bible to swear on.
Why would you even want a muslim to swear on the bible? It's not his holy book. It wouldn't be a religious oath for him. It would be like swearing on a MacDonald's wrapper.
And, he'd be taking your god's name in vain (the real way -- not this stupid cursing thing that people think is taking God's name in vain) by swearing a false oath to him.
And as has been pointed out, there are many different versions of the bible.
This must have been addressed before when Jewish or non-religious people were sworn in. Are there no agnostic or atheist congressmen?
Maybe swearing (or affirming) on a copy of the Constitution would be better. Herbert Hoover and Franklin Pierce affirmed their oaths, and used no book. George Washington, who started the whole stupid "So Help Me God" thing used a Masonic Bible. The oath prescribed in the Constitution does not contain the phrase "so help me god". Our Nazi friend Pager should look it up.
I think that all Congressmen - hell, all elected officials - should be sworn in on a copy of the Constitution, with an oath (or affirmation, for Quakers) that makes no mention of any diety, only one's duty to the United States.
Islamicization-- THE FUCK?
English, motherfucker, do you speak it?
Also, if the terrorists' goals are to make America an Islamic nation, and you want to stop that with the Bible, then you're just as bad by trying to make us and them an all Christian nation.
Please try Islamification next time you want to invent words.
You may like to look up the meanings of a few others you used.
Civilization for one, even if you did qualify it with American - someone's ruining your country alright, but it's not who you think it is.
He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization ."
Good grief! Hyperbole much?
Dang, that's a lot of Crisco on that slope.
~David D.G.
I'm sorry, Mr. Dumbass, but this is not a Christian nation and the Bible is but a symbol. To this congressman, the Bible is meaningless. Taking the vow on the Qur'an would give it more meaning to him.
The world doesn't revolve around you or your religion.
As I recall, though, Dennis Prager is Jewish, not Christian. This is in line with a number of things I've heard him say, but he's not actually a fundie.
"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."
Then we should put a stop to that, because there isn't a unifying, or unified, value system underlying America (at least not as you're using the word here). That was the point when this country was created.
"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."
No, he won't. We are supposed to be unified in our acceptance of widely diverse viewpoints, beliefs, backgrounds and cultures -- not by an insistence on just one. He'll be reminding us that freedom of religion was never intended just for Christians.
America is not that significant, stupid. You are not the center of the world, the focus of everyone's attention.
The book you are "swearing" on, shouldn't that book mean the world to you? I can swear most anything on the phone book, as for me the phone book doesn't contain any mysterious power. If you are a Muslim, swearing on the Bible means next to nothing, but swearing on the Quran makes you think about what you are saying, and makes you really really mean those things.
Europe is in trouble? How so? Beside the economic crisis "given" to us by the US, we are doing rather fine, thank you.
"(no religion, can they use a voter's registration list?)"
I'd want to use something like Das Kapital just to wind these fuckers up. Or The God Delusion.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.