Newly elected Muslim lawmaker under fire

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

I know that and seriously believe it to be the way to end international conflicts - to be the so called melting pot where different ethnicities break down to unite as one. I don't believe in nationalism. It delays the pre-mentioned.

But the US is not quite there yet. So why not conform to it's system if you live there???

I agree with conformity and nationalism to a point, but as far as getting there (like Europe), I hope it's not that simple. I don't want to get there. First thing: they disarm the citizens.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Nevertheless, a number of people had me pegged as an anti-American, bleeding-heart pacifist.

Can you imagine?

It happens all the time.....the right is GOOD at doing that to ANYONE who disagrees with THEIR agenda. MORE WAR.. Less actual serving America and what the Constitution is supposed to be about.l

All the time? Not nearly as often as I get labelled a neo-con.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>What specifically did he (Prager) say that led you to this "truth"?

"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."

>I do love how so many jump to unsupported conclusions around here. It is amusing.

Yes it is! Imagine how boring it would be if people actually read the stuff they were posting about.

Imagine.

It seems more like Prager took Ellison's announcement at face value and let his own lack of knowledge get the better of him.

Ignorant blathering? Probably.

Outrage over a mere photo-op? Riiiiiight

[billvon 3,118]

>It seems more like Prager took Ellison's announcement at face value
>and let his own lack of knowledge get the better of him.

Like I said - the perils of believing what a radio talk show host says.

>Outrage over a mere photo-op?

Hey, right wing talk show hosts specialize in outrage, no matter what's going on in the "reality-based community."

[NCclimber 0]

Spin it all you want. You've still done nothing to prove "Prager is outraged because Ellison wants to do a PHOTO OP with a Koran".

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Prager is right up there with http://jeffgannon.com

The man is an American... the man is a muslimpolitician.. he needs to use the Koranmay as well be using a comic book for his ceremony. The people who ELECTED him KNEW he is a muslim politician.

Fixed it for ya'.

Walt

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

Quote

The swearing-in has nothing to do with a bible. Prager is outraged because Ellison wants to do a PHOTO OP with a Koran?

Is this one of those "fill in the blanks to suit your particular outrage" fabrications?

I ask because I just read Prager's column and saw nothing that would back your statement.

If you read Prager's Opinion piece it becomes very clear that he is not familiar with the specific facts of the US constitution.

Prager Says: But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

US Constitution says:The Presidential oath of office is described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Constitutional History says:the Constitution doesn't require Presidents or other federal officials to place their hand on the Bible or say the words "so help me God." Quite the contrary, those sections of the Constitution that deal with oaths of office are completely secular in content and, as such, constitute evidence that the framers intended separation.
Nothing in this section requires that the oath of office be taken on the Bible. Neither do the words "so help me God" appear in the oath. While Presidents often include this phrase in their inauguration ceremonies, the words are customary; they are not required by the Constitution and have no legal significance.

Additionally, we note that the words required by the Constitution are described as an "Oath or Affirmation," and that the President is allowed to simply affirm his faithfulness to the Constitution. The word "affirmation" was inserted in this section precisely to allow Presidents to avoid swearing oaths to God as a condition of taking office. This provision seems particularly intended for Quakers (who had religious objections to taking oaths), but it is worded broadly enough to encompass any person who objects to taking an oath, including non-theists.





This should sufficiently demonstrate that Prager's nationalist outrage is based on strawman arguments, ignorance of the facts, and Ellison's desire to affirm his oath of office on the koran. Most people would call that a photo op.

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[billvon 3,118]

>You've still done nothing to prove "Prager is outraged because
>Ellison wants to do a PHOTO OP with a Koran".

Nor do I care to. Learn how the oath of office works in the House, or if you prefer, believe whatever Prager says. Heck, believe we're winning the war in Iraq and that we're safer than ever from terrorism. Whatever you like. It's Friday!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

All the time? Not nearly as often as I get labelled a neo-con.

The neo-cons are the ones who are infamous for IF YOU AINT WITH US YOU IS AGAINST US.... or.. any dissent and deviation from THEIR PATH that they chose to mislead this country down.. they label as unpatriotic.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

I know that and seriously believe it to be the way to end international conflicts - to be the so called melting pot where different ethnicities break down to unite as one. I don't believe in nationalism. It delays the pre-mentioned.

But the US is not quite there yet. So why not conform to it's system if you live there???

And the US system is ..... freedom of religion, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, and supported by a very clear statement in one of the first international treaties ratified by the Congress that the USA is NOT founded on Christianity.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[vortexring 0]

This is all very nice, but seeing as America is not a Muslim country, why not simply conform?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

This is all very nice, but seeing as America is not a Muslim country, why not simply conform?

I think you're tweaking for the fun (and it is!) of stirring shit, but I'll answer, for the benefit of some of the genuine Neanderthals out there:

It's because the US isn't a Christian country, either; it's a a Christian-majority country, and there's a world of difference. Given that the US, in the ideal of its creed (but unfortunately not always in its application), has both freedom of religion and freedom from it, saying it's offensive for a Muslim to be sworn in with a Koran rather than a Bible is akin to saying a it's offensively non-conformist for the one Jewish family in the neighborhood to have a menorah in its front window instead of a Christmas tree.

Or maybe, given what the creed of the US is supposed to be, tolerance of a Muslim being sworn in with a Koran is conformity.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Members of the House DO NOT SWEAR IN ON A BIBLE. (Bolded, since you missed it before.) They swear in by raising their right hand and repeating an oath. No bibles or korans involved.

Thanks for clarifying this, Bill.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Likewise, if this Muslim congressman intends to try and implement Muslim Sharia law in place of American law, then we'd have a problem...

Yep, you're right. This would be a problem.

We are all engines of karma

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Likewise, if this Muslim congressman intends to try and implement Muslim Sharia law in place of American law, then we'd have a problem...

Yep, you're right. This would be a problem.

Yes, it would be a problem, as much as it would be a problem if a Christian or Jewish Congressman intended to impose Christian or Jewish religious law upon the US. (You ate meat during Lent? You worked on the Sabbath? You're not just going to hell, you're going to jail!) But that question doesn't get asked these days, now does it?

When JFK ran for President, Protestant doomsayers (some out of bigotry, others out of simple ignorance) worried that he'd develop some sort of sinister alliance with the Vatican to try to "Catholicize" America. Today, that attitude seems so foolish as to be quaint.

It should be (and in fact is) just as foolish to wonder aloud whether a Muslim Congressman might want to impose Sharia law on the US simply because he takes an oath on a Koran and not a Bible, or simply because he's a Muslim. 9/11 is no excuse for this kind of attitude in America. Did we not learn anything about attitudes when we incarcerated Japanese Americans in prison camps after Pearl Harbor? I see a dangerous double standard in what some people are saying.

[Skyrad 0]

I thought that freedom of religious expression was protected in the United States constitution.... Or has that been scraped as well?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Amazon 7]

Quote

When JFK ran for President, Protestant doomsayers (some out of bigotry, others out of simple ignorance) worried that he'd develop some sort of sinister alliance with the Vatican to try to "Catholicize" America. Today, that attitude seems so foolish as to be quaint.

In the protestant school I was attending at the time.. he was called a Papist stooge....I remember the time and the slurs very well . THere was fear that our country would not be controlled by the president.. but by the Pope.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I thought that freedom of religious expression was protected in the United States constitution.... Or has that been scraped as well?

It's freedom from religious expression, lately...welcome to the PC generation.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

This is all very nice, but seeing as America is not a Muslim country, why not simply conform?

I think you're tweaking for the fun (and it is!) of stirring shit, but I'll answer, for the benefit of some of the genuine Neanderthals out there:


hahahahaa - I'm not shit stirring! Thanks for your excellent & informative reply

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

• Quote

[billvon 3,118]

>but seeing as America is not a Muslim country, why not simply conform?

Because of that pesky Bill of Rights.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

When JFK ran for President, Protestant doomsayers (some out of bigotry, others out of simple ignorance) worried that he'd develop some sort of sinister alliance with the Vatican to try to "Catholicize" America. Today, that attitude seems so foolish as to be quaint.

In the protestant school I was attending at the time.. he was called a Papist stooge....I remember the time and the slurs very well . THere was fear that our country would not be controlled by the president.. but by the Pope.

Did I say that? In a Presidential race your'e gonna hear everything. I never heard anything bad about Kennedy; only a joke about him getting popecycles from the Vatican, and that was from my geometry teacher.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[ExAFO 0]

If the Koran or Book of Mormon is acceptable, so should the following, (Courtesy of Wikipedia):

Ásatrú

* The Poetic Edda, including especially the Hávamál
* The Younger Edda

Ayyavazhi

* The Akilattirattu Ammanai
* The Arul Nool

Bahá'í Faith

* The Kitáb-i-Aqdas
* Kitáb-i-Íqán
* and many other writings including ones from other faiths

Buddhism

* The Tipitaka or Pali canon
* and other Buddhist texts

Christianity

* The Bible, and
o Apocrypha
o in Roman Catholicism:
+ the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Mormonism

* The Book of Mormon
o The Pearl of Great Price
+ The Doctrine and Covenants

Spiritism

* The Spirits Book
o
+ The Book of Mediums
+ The Gospel According to Spiritism
+ Heaven and Hell
+ The Genesis According to Spiritism


Etruscan religion

* Pyrgi Tablets
* Tabula Cortonensis
* Liber Linteus
* Cippus Perusinus

Falun Gong

* The Zhuan Falun

Hinduism

The Bhagvad Gita
* Śruti
o Vedas
+ Rig Veda
+ Sama Veda
+ Yajur Veda
+ Atharva Veda
o Brahmanas
o Aranyakas
o Upanishads
* Smriti
o Itihāsas
+ Mahābhārata
# Bhagavad Gītā
+ Ramayana
+ Puranas (List)
o Tantras
o Sutras (List)
o Stotras
o Ashtavakra Gita
o Gherand Samhita
o Gita Govinda
o Hatha Yoga Pradipika

Islam

* Al-Qur'an (Islamic Scripture, Al-Kitab, 'the Book')
* Al-Hadith (sayings and doings of Prophet Muhammad)
* Sunnah

Jainism

* Tattvartha Sutra

Judaism

* The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)
o Torah
o Nevi'im
o Ketuvim
* Talmud
o Mishnah
o Gemara

Mandaeanism

* The Ginza Rba

Manichaeism

* The Arzhang

New Age religions

Various New Age religions may regard any of the following texts as inspired:

* Course in Miracles
* Conversations with God
* Oahspe
* The Urantia Book

Rastafari movement

* The Bible
* the Holy Piby
* the Kebra Negast
* The speeches of Haile Selassie I
* Royal Parchment Scroll of Black Supremacy

Samaritanism

* The Samaritan Pentateuch


[edit] Sikhism

* The Guru Granth Sahib
* The Dasam Granth Sahib

[edit] Shinto

* The Kojiki
* The Nihon Shoki or Nihingi

[edit] SubGenius

* The Book of the SubGenius

[edit] Swedenborgianism

* The Bible
* The writings of Emanuel Swedenborg
* Some also consider a number of posthumously published manuscripts of Swedenborg to also be sacred.

[edit] Taoism

* The Tao-te-ching
* The I Ching
* The Chuang Tzu

[edit] Thelema

* The Holy Books of Thelema especially Liber Al vel Legis

Unification Church

* Divine Principle
* Wolli Hesul (Explanation of the Divine Principle)
* Wolli Kangron (Exposition of the Divine Principle)

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

If the Koran or Book of Mormon is acceptable, so should the following, (Courtesy of Wikipedia):

Ásatrú

* The Poetic Edda, including especially the Hávamál
* The Younger Edda

Ayyavazhi


...

How could you omit THIS?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

a number of people had me pegged as an anti-American, bleeding-heart pacifist.

I've seen nothing in your consistent and prolific posts to warrant calling you a bleeding-heart pacifist.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

If the Koran or Book of Mormon is acceptable, so should the following, (Courtesy of Wikipedia):

Ásatrú

* The Poetic Edda, including especially the Hávamál
* The Younger Edda

Ayyavazhi


...

How could you omit THIS?

Alas Professor, Law School has fried my brain. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.