Last I heard this country has Freedom of Speech. Dennis Prager has exercised it by writing an article at Townhall.com in which he deplores the idea of recently elected Congressman Keith Ellison, D-Minn swearing in on a copy of the Koran instead of a Bible. Dennis expressed his feelings and since writing the article has taken many hits from people on both sides of the aisle.
I feel that Mr. Prager made some good points in his article. The folowing for example:
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?
There must be lines drawn or society will fall apart. Is this one of those places where the line should be drawn? I think so. Not because I am a hate filled Christian do I believe this but because common sense tells us that there will be those in the future that will demand more and more untill there is no line at all.
Dennis Prager has, since his initial posting on Townhall authored a rebuttal to his critics. In it he says:
My belief that the Bible should be present at any oath (or affirmation) of office has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion of the office holder. And it never has until Keith Ellison’s decision to substitute a different text for the Bible. Many office holders who do not believe in the Bible at all or who reject some part have nevertheless used the Bible at their swearing-in (I noted this in my column). Even the vast majority of Jews elected to office have used a Bible containing both the Old and New Testaments, even though Jews do not regard the New Testament as part of their Bible. A tiny number of Jews have used only the Old Testament. As a religious Jew, I of course understand their decision, but I disagree with it.
The following is from – Mark Memmott’s posting at USA Today
Today, the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Prager should lose his presidential appointment to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council because of “his intolerant views toward Islam in American Society.”
– prying1 sez: How intolerant can you get. Wake up CAIR. You are in America . We have Free Speech. And may Dennis Prager continue to be allowed to exercise his. –
5 users commented in " Dennis Prager Lives in America "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackMr. Prager makes an interesting point; at what point do we draw the line. And, that point should be debated fully. However, drawing a parallel with the Islam’s holy book with Hitler’s “bible” is teetering on ignorance of the three great religions–Christianity, Judaism and Islam. These three have the same grand-father–Abraham.
As part of separation of church and state, perhaps no book should be used to take an oath on. An oath on a religious book, for all intents and purposes, does not inhibit one to cheat, take bribes, etc as the recent congress have shown aplenty.
I thank God that our pastor of our church has started a series called “Jewdaism, Christianity and Islam: What in the World is going on?”
In this series of sermons (backed up with my own research on this issue), the truth has come out, that these three religions DO NOT all share the same ancestry (Abraham).
In the Koran, Allah is portayed as a distant god (Muslims can have no hope of actually knowing him in this life), as opposed to the God of Abraham who always came near His creation, and wanted a relationship.
In Islam, there is a doctrine (forgot what it is called) that says that the later writings of Mohammed are always to be considered, if and when the contradict other writings. So while the Koran has peaceful writings, the later violent writings are to take precedence. In other Mohammed spent his early years seeking peaceful means to recruit or evalgelize the then non-Muslim world. However, these peaceful methods didn’t evangelize the world to Islam well enough or fast enough for Mohammed, who later in his life wrote the more violent parts of the Koran. The Jews and Christians (and even all non-Muslims) were called infadels, and Muhammed in the Koran commands all true Muslims to kill them by the sword.
There are so many other things you NEED to know. For example, it is ok for a Muslim to lie, if it is in the best interest of Islam.
The guise of a “peaceful religion hijacked by a few radical fundamentalists” is nothing more than politically correct psychobable. It is a LIE from the pit of hell.
Sure, some Muslims want to live a peaceful existence, and pursue happiness, etc. But when the Islam-o-facists start to rage their campaign of violence, these “peaceful” Muslims are easily brought into line with the Koran, and radical Islam, with fear and intimitdation, and intrepedation. When the radical fundamentalists start their campaign of hate, every MUSLIM! who is seen as NOT being facist enough, is also considered an infidel, and beheaded as such, or killed in a way to instigate fear amongst other Muslims, to keep them in tow.
This is the explanation of why the Shiites and the Sunnis hate each other, and kill each other.
Don’t be STUPID! Islam has as its fundamental goal to take over the world, and institute Sharia law upon the whole world.
But, you don’t want a Judeo-Christian America–NO–that is bad, bad bad. Well, we will see how you do under Sharia Law.
You very head (literally) depends upon you waking up, America!
Mr. Prager appears to have forgotten that the use of the Bible is a tradition and not a requirement. The Constitution states in
Article II section 1 that the elected president 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.”
Note there is no oath to God in the statement and no requirement to swear on any book, only to the Constitution of the United States. There was some debate about taking an oath to God at the constitutional convention but it was determined that such oaths merely end up in producing liars. The same can be said for oaths to God in courts of law. If one believes in a personal God then one will believe that he will be judged for lying but one’s swearing does not indicate that one is being truthful. If not not religious in that way, then the oath or affirmation will not indicate how one will act in court of law or as President, for that matter.
Nas Nass – I’m sorry I did not separate the Prager Quotes and my own paragraphs very well. I’m still on a learning curve on BNN.
“There must be lines drawn or society will fall apart….” is my paragraph. I’ve felt this same before on other issues such as redefining words like ‘marraige’ to appease a group that will never be satisfied.
Dennis Prager had the paragraph before that concerning multiculturalism and political correctness. He did not draw a co-relation between Mein Kampf and any other book. His point was that the Bible has been continually used throughout the years and if, as you say, Christianity, Judaism and Islam have the same “grand-father–Abraham” WHY should recently elected Congressman Keith Ellison, D-Minn NOT use it???
Perhaps Mr. Ellison prefers to NOT utilize a Bible because he sees his religion more like DavidPaul has described it as opposed to the ‘Abraham is all God’s Chillun’s Great Great Grandpappy’ point of view. For example, Does Mr. Ellison believe it is ok for a Muslim to lie, if it is in the best interest of Islam. If we ask him and he says, “No” can we believe him? He is a politician after all.
~~~~~
Thanks for your comment DavidPaul I appreciate your input and hope, with you, that America wakes up.
~~~~~
lrshultis =- Mr Prager is well aware of the fact that the Bible used for oaths is a tradition as opposed to a law. He said on the radio today he would oppose it being made into law. He also offered a solution which has been used before.
On his rebuttal linked above he said, “I agree with the tens of thousands of office holders in American history who have honored the American tradition — I am well aware it is not a law, and I do not want it to be — of bringing a Bible to their ceremonial or actual swearing-in. Keith Ellison is ending that powerful tradition, and it is he who has called the public’s attention to his doing so. He obviously thinks this is important. I think it is important. My critics think it isn’t.” —
…
He also said,
“I am for no law to be passed to prevent Keith Ellison or anyone else from bringing any book he wants to his swearing-in, whether actual or ceremonial. But neither I nor tens of millions of other Americans will watch in silence as the Bible is replaced with another religious text for the first time since George Washington brought a Bible to his swearing-in. It is not I, but Keith Ellison, who has engaged in disuniting the country. He can still help reunite it by simply bringing both books to his ceremonial swearing-in. Had he originally announced that he would do that, I would have written a different column — filled with praise of him. And there would be a lot less cursing and anger in America.”
~~~~~
There is the simple solution. Mr. Ellison can bring both books with him and be a true uniter and not a divider. Will he? We shall see.
My real point in this posting is the intolerance of those that claim to be most tolerant. – prying1 –
The simple solution is to not make a religious-political statement out of the oath or affirmation by doing away with the tradition all together and end the U.S.A.’s childhood and become a nation of adults. It is not tradition that holds the nation together, but the Constitution as a governing idea. It governs by permitting, through the permission of the citizens, some persons to use force against those who would initiate the use of force, i.e., it permits some to apply a negative feedback to the citizenry as does any governing process. Without the constitution, traditions would not hold the nation together.
My suggestion for oath taking in general is to raise your hand and have both a secular statement and a religious statement read and the oath taker say yes or no (oops, no is not allowed, though I did that once to have the court go search for the secular statement which really has some heavy consequences for lying in it in my state of Wisconsin) without indicating politically your beliefs by taking one oath or the other. Many people seem to believe that the oath to God is just a tradition and means nothing, but it should have strong meaning to anyone who say yes to it. I am without any theistic belief and respect those who need religion in their lives but do not respect those who shove it in my face by assuming that I should lie by saying yes to a religious oath when it is read to me first without asking whether I believe in a god or gods or no god.
Leave A Reply